Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Manchester Training Centre

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the management at the Alms Hill Labour Training Centre, Cheetham Hill, Manchester, insist that trainees must reach the place by 7 a.m.; that, owing to transport difficulties, those resident in the Wigan and Bolton areas must in some cases get up at about 3 a.m. and waste time on the way to reach the centre at that hour; that complaints are made about messroom accommodation there; and will he cause inquiries to be made into the administration of this centre, more particularly that covering shift A and arrange that the hours of training at the centre shall, if possible, correspond to transport facilities?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of efficient training for trainees on the first shift at the Manchester Training Centre to attend at 7 a.m. Those who cannot conveniently do this from their homes are normally expected to go into lodgings near the centre under conditions similar to those applicable to transferred war workers. To assist trainees who continue to live at home arrangements have now been made for a special bus to meet trains from Wigan and Bolton which are due at Manchester at approximately 6.50 a.m. This should enable trainees from these towns to travel by a later train than formerly. No complaints have been made to the centre authorities about messroom accommodation.

Mr. Davies: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman intends to uproot these people from their homes just for a few weeks' training; and do we under-

stand that the management at the training centre will allow them to enter the centre even though they are a little late if the lateness is due to transport difficulties?

Mr. Bevin: The arrival of the people who come by train and bus is determined, of course, by transport arriving on time. I am not uprooting these people any more than other people, but I cannot have training centres everywhere, and so I have to bring the people to the training centres.

Girl, Widnes (Work Direction)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Miss Jean Price, age 19, 10, Farrant Street, Widnes, is threatened with a direction to go out to work though her grandmother living in the same house is a chronic invalid; that her sister living with them is already working under direction; that the local woman employment exchange officer who threatens the direction has stated that the grandmother could be left alone in spite of a medical certificate to the contrary; that she sat on the hardship tribunal with only one other person to determine her own direction; and will he allow one of these two sisters to remain at home to perform household duties and care for the invalid?

Mr. Bevin: This case has been reconsidered, and while circumstances remain as at present no further action will be taken to transfer Miss Jean Price to other work. I understand she is performing part-time work at a local cinema. The Women's Panel which considered the case was properly constituted, and consisted of two independent members.

Mr. Davis: I take it, then, that this woman will be left where she is for the time being.

Captain Strickland: Do I understand that an official of an employment exchange can sit in a judicial capacity on a hardship committee with only one independent member?

Mr. Bevin: No.

Captain Strickland: What is the position, then?

Mr. Bevin: If I am asked about the constitution of hardship committees, the hon. and gallant Member should put the Question on the Paper.

Captain Strickland: Did I understand the Minister to say that an employment exchange official could sit in a judicial capacity on a hardship committee?

Mr. Bevin: No.

Trade Disputes

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Labour whether for public information and guidance, he will in future issue a brief official statement on any serious strike or cessation of work, official or unofficial, giving the reasons alleged by both sides and the wages of those concerned, actual and demanded?

Mr. Bevin: I regret that I cannot adopt this suggestion. The circumstances of trade disputes are seldom such that a statement of the kind indicated would serve a useful purpose without an examination of the validity and merits of the reasons alleged by both sides, and this would require a formal and impartial inquiry. I have power to order such inquiries, and I exercise this power whenever it seems appropriate to do so.

Theatrical Artistes

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state, in relation to deferment given to theatrical artistes conditionally on work for E.N.S.A., what are the maximum and minimum periods of work for E.N.S.A. that have been so imposed; whether the salary is fixed and at what sum for such employment?

Mr. Bevin: Deferment is granted for theatrical artistes subject to their undertaking to give their services to E.N.S.A. for not less than six weeks each year. Salaries are fixed by E.N.S.A. in accordance with their normal rates of pay.

First Aid Nursing Yeomanry

Mr. Frankel: asked the Minister of Labour whether girls of 19 years of age are permitted to enter F.A.N.Y. now that the Services are closed to girls of this age?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, except where submissions are made through my Department to certain approved vacancies.

Mr. Leach: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us who is this mysterious F.A.N.Y.?

Discharged Service Men (Rehabilitation and Training)

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men are being discharged from the Services on medical grounds and entering civil employment for which they are physically unfit, and will he make arrangements for all men discharged from the Services to be interviewed at an employment exchange for the purpose of receiving explanations of rehabilitation and training schemes?

Mr. Bevin: The arrangements for interviewing men and women who are discharged from His Majesty's Forces on medical grounds or because of disablement include interviewing at hospitals and other invaliding establishments as well as at employment exchanges. Special steps are taken, by means of reports and discussions, to get expert medical advice as to the individual's condition and as to the most suitable kind of occupation. All local offices of the Ministry have full particulars of the training and other schemes designed to assist the satisfactory resettlement of persons suffering from any form of disability—whether as the result of service with His Majesty's Forces or from other causes.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Minister of Labour what trades are now being taught in classes for disabled men?

Mr. Bevin: There are at present special classes in progress in 21 trades for disabled men, and, in addition, disabled men are being trained with fit men in ten trades under the ordinary munitions training scheme. As the list of trades available for training of the disabled is lengthy, I will circulate it if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, indicating which of the trades are now being taught.

Sir A. Knox: Are there at present any classes for training men in shoe repairing, jobbing tailoring, bookbinding and basket making?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot answer that. I have had to confine the main training at the moment to people who can find occupation in the munition industries, as stated when I announced the interim scheme. If the hon. and gallant Member after examining the list in the official record has other suggestions to make, I will certainly take them into consideration.

Following is the List of Trades available for the Training of Disabled.

A

Bricklaying.
Carpentry.
Commercial (Book-keeping, shorthand, type-writing).
Draughtsmanship.
Electrician.
Fitting.
Inspection and Viewing.
Instrument Making.
Machine Operating.
Motor Mechanics.
Sheet Metal Working and Panel Beating.
Radio Fault-finding and Testing.
Spray and Brush Painting.
Surgical Appliance Making.
Telephone Switchboard Operator.
Typewriter Mechanics.
Watch and Clock Repairer.
Welding (Oxy-acetylene and Electric).
Gardening.
Handyman.
Storekeeping.

B

Fitting.
Electrician.
Draughtsmanship.
Inspection and Viewing.
Instrument Making.
Machine Operating.
Motor Mechanics.
Sheet Metal Working and Panel Beating.
Ships Riveters and Rivet Beaters.
Welding (Oxy-acetylene and Electric).

C

Coppersmith.
Canteen Management.
Canteen Cook.
Boiler and Dynamo Attendant.
Concrete and Shuttering.
Dental Mechanics.
Electro-plating.
Garage Mechanic and Light Lorry Driver.
Gas and Hot Water Fitting.
Glass Blowing.
Glazing.
Hairdressing.
Plumbing.
Scientific Instrument Assembly.
Slating and Tiling.
Typography.
Wood-machining.
Metallurgical Analyst.

NOTE.—

A = Special Classes for the disabled.

B = Normal Classes in which disabled men are trained with fit men.

C = Classes which can be set up for disabled men as required.

Directed Women Workers (Lodging Allowance)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will pay subsistence allowances to women directed to work in places away from their homes, as is done in the case of evacuated civil servants,

since their earnings in many instances do not enable them to meet their living and other reasonable expenses.

Mr. E. Bevin: As my hon. Friend will be aware, any transferred worker who was living with and maintaining dependants before transfer receives a lodging allowance of 24s. 6d. a week from my Department in order to assist with the extra expenses where two establishments have to be maintained. In addition, I have recently made arrangements in the case of transferred women not eligible for these allowances to pay a "settling-in" grant of 25s. a week for the first week after transfer, 20s. the second, 15s. the third, and 10s. for the fourth week, unless the women are living in a Government hostel, when these payments are reduced by 5s. per week. I have made these arrangements to help tide the women over the initial period during which she may need to acquire proficiency to enable her to secure a reasonable level of earnings. Further than that I am afraid I cannot go. The adequacy of earnings in any given industry is a question for settlement through the normal negotiating machinery of that industry, and where an industry is depending on an intake of transferred women, it will be necessary for the industry to see that full account is taken of their needs.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in practice it is not sufficient to provide these allowances for four weeks only, when he has taken these women to work away from their homes has he not a responsibility to see that their income is sufficient to meet reasonable expenses? Will he not treat them at least as favourably as evacuated civil servants?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot undertake to subsidise low wages in an industry. If the man or the woman—because there is exactly equal treatment—has not two establishments to maintain I am afraid that it is not possible for me to recommend my colleagues in the Government to make up wages. What I do is to take what steps I can through the negotiating machinery to see that the wages are put right.

Mr. William Brown: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the figure should be 24s. 6d. in the case of industrial workers and 21s. in the case of civil servants?

Mr. Bevin: I always thought the appetite of a civil servant was not that of an industrial worker.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (SALARY LIMIT)

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Minister of Labour what representations he has received in favour of raising the salary limit in unemployment insurance to £600 a year; and what reasons were given for the suggestion?

Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to a very similar Question put by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. Hepworth).

Mr. Shinwell: As some hon. Members may be unemployed after the next General Election will the right hon. Gentleman not give serious consideration to this matter?

Mr. Bevin: We hope to have the Beveridge Scheme ready by then.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Mentally Defective Children (Occupation Centres)

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is intended to take over the occupation centres for the training of mentally retarded children and so make them a part of the regular educational system of the kingdom?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): No, Sir. These occupation centres are intended for lower-grade defective children who are unable to benefit by any kind of school training.

McNair Committee (Report)

Mr. W. Brown: asked the President of the Board of Education when he expects the Report of the McNair Committee will be available?

Mr. Butler: I hope to receive the Report of the McNair Committee during the first quarter of next year.

Teachers (Recruitment)

Mr. W. Brown: asked the President of the Board of Education what progress he has met with in regard to the recruitment of teachers?

Mr. Butler: The first in the series of conferences referred to in my answers of 21st October and 11th November last has been held. The programme of meetings will, I hope, be completed by the middle of January. The correspondence courses for members of the Services are expected to be available early in the new year, thus every practicable step is being taken pending the release of men and women from the Forces.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing a White Paper setting out the short-term policy far the training of teachers?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly take any steps which commend themselves, in order that hon. Members may know about it, but I think the scheme was, in general, set out in the answer given to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) on. 21st October. If my hon. Friend wants any further information, I will certainly consider her request.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: Will the Minister confer with the Minister of Labour in order to ensure a reasonable priority of demobilisation, so that these men may be returned in order to train for their avocation?

Mr. Butler: All those matters are under consideration.

Teachers' Salaries

Mr. W. Brown: asked the President of the Board of Education what is the present state of discussions between the National Union of Teachers and the Burnham Committee on the question of teachers' salaries?

Mr. Butler: I understand that the teachers' panel of the Burnham Elementary Committee, the members of which are appointed by the National Union of Teachers, have given notice to terminate as from 1st April, 1944, the salary scales contained in the Committee's current Report of 1938. I have not been informed of the stage at present reached in the discussions between the two sides of the Committee.

Mr. Brown: In view of the fact that the present agreement is due to run out shortly, is it not apparent that the discussions should be conducted sufficiently rapidly to ensure that we shall not find ourselves without a new agreement, at the end of the present agreement?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, I am aware of all those difficulties, but I think that I had better receive the Report to which I referred at the end of my statement.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister not aware that if he waits until then he will be waiting until the present agreement has expired?

Mr. Butler: We usually move in very good time at the Board of Education, and my hon. Friend had better rely on our usual perspicacity.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL HEREDITAMENTS (DE-RATING)

Mr. Robertson: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the representations of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee and other municipal associations in favour of the repeal of the de-rating provisions of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928; and, having regard to the unfair burden that shopkeepers and other ratepayers are bearing, will he take immediate steps to bring these excess profits tax-paying industrial concerns into full rating?

Mr. Shinwell: Before this Question and the other Questions addressed to the Minister of Health are answered, Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Patronage Secretary about the absence from the Treasury Bench of the Minister of Health, who has just been appointed? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is indisposed, that is another matter, but if he is absent because of other engagements it does seem to me that, so soon after his appointment, it is very desirable that he should attend to answer Questions.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart): I regret to say that the Minister has influenza.

Mr. Shinwell: Then I beg his pardon.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend's predecessor gave him on 4th November.

Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that the conditions of distress which de-rating was designed to relieve no longer exist, and is it right that the wives of Service men and

small struggling shopkeepers should have to pay full rates while other classes of the community are paying only part of their rates?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think my hon. Friend might look again at the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend's predecessor about the difficulties of introducing legislation for making any change in the rating of this country at the present time.

Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that ever since the war broke out we have been bringing in amending legislation to correct anomalies? Is there any greater anomaly than this one?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Local Authorities (Acquisition of Sites)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health why his Department is advising local authorities against the acquisition of housing sites beyond those required for building in the first year after the war?

Miss Horsbrugh: The advice is given in accordance with an arrangement made early this year by my right hon. Friend's predecessor with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning which removed the embargo against the purchase of land by local authorities so far as a first year's housing programme is concerned. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend is looking into the practicability of some further relaxation.

Mr. Molson: Does not this answer indicate the desirability of the Government coming to some conclusion about general policy on land acquisition?

Miss Horsbrugh: I pointed out to my hon. friend that the sites that are already in the possession of local authorities will provide for housing to a great extent beyond what is possible at the moment.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister keeping his eye on speculators to see that they do not get away with it?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will have the assistance and the information required from my hon. friend.

Rural Districts, Essex

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health how many rural cottages have been built in the county of Essex, respectively, during the war and since June; whether he will give the cost per cottage and price of land per acre for those constructed this year in comparison with those previously built and those built immediately before the war; what are the rents plus rates for those built this year; and how many new cottages are needed?

Miss Horsbrugh: As the answer is rather long, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Meanwhile, will the hon. Lady at least say how many houses for occupation have been constructed in rural districts since the war broke out?

Miss Horsbrugh: Nine hundred and forty-four houses were completed in rural districts in Essex between 1st August, 1939, and 31st March, 1943. If the hon. Member will look at my answer, which is rather long, I think he will be able to obtain a better picture.

Mr. Sorensen: Surely most of these houses were completed just after the beginning of the war and from that time onwards practically no houses have been completed?

Miss Horsbrugh: It has been the policy of the Government that labour is not to be taken during the war from other essential work to build houses. The Prime Minister has made that clear in this House.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Lady sure that that is the reason and that it is not due to the high price of land?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir. The reason as has been stated, is that labour and materials are required for essential war work and should not at this stage be diverted to housing.

Following is the answer:

944 houses were completed in rural districts in Essex between 1st August, 1939, and 31st March, 1943 (the nearest dates for which figures are available). Practically the only houses built in Essex since June last are the 66 agricultural cottages now being completed under the War-time Agricultural Cottages Scheme. The estimated average cost of these

cottages is £875 for a parlour house and £691 for a non-parlour house, excluding the cost of land, roads, sewers and architects' fees and contingencies such as workmen's travelling expenses, overtime, etc. The average price of the land is £85 an acre.

The average cost of houses built by all rural district councils in June, 1939, was £462 (parlour type) and £374 (non-parlour type).

The rents of the war-time agricultural cottages will not exceed 10s. a week for parlour houses and 8s. 6d. for non-parlour houses, plus rates.

The number of new cottages ultimately needed cannot yet be assessed. It will certainly be substantial.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health whether he will use for the building and repair of rural houses Irish or other labour engaged hitherto in the construction of airfields as and when such airfields are completed?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend will be glad to make use of any suitable labour as and when it becomes available.

Flats (Carpeting)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the clause in many leases for flats, that the floors must be carpeted; and whether he will take action in the matter in view of the fact that it is often impossible to buy carpets except at prohibitive prices?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend has no evidence that in so far as such clauses may be included in leases, action is being taken to enforce them unreasonably at the present time. He does not think, therefore, there is any need for him to seek special powers.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the Minister aware that my information is absolutely to the contrary, and that while certain firms such as Plus Flats do meet the requirements of people, other firms absolutely insist on the letter of the agreement?

Miss Horsbrugh: If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars, we will be very glad to look into them.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Is it the policy of the Ministry not to prevent an evil of this kind before it arises, when it is threatened, or is it to wait until it has


occurred and then try to do something to cure it?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think we have found in wartime that if we spend time looking for evils which may arise we shall not get on with the work. When these difficulties have arisen we have generally with goodwill been able to solve them.

Old People

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Health, whether, in any future plans for housing, he will consider the provision of a percentage of almshouses in country towns and villages for old people?

Miss Horsbrugh: The Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Dudley, is giving special attention to the type of accommodation most suitable for old people, and my right hon. Friend will certainly give advice to local authorities on this very important matter when he has considered the Sub-committee's report.

Viscountess Astor: Would the hon. Lady impress on local authorities that such accommodation must be in an accessible position, and will she bear in mind that some of them made the most crashing mistakes? I hope she will do more than advise them and that she will almost compel them.

Mr. Reakes: Will the hon. Lady consider if this praiseworthy aim is adopted, the objection to the word "almshouses"? In my opinion it is objectionable.

Miss Horsbrugh: I will take note of that, but I think that people's opinions differ. I think we may be able to call such houses one name in one place and another in another, according to local feelings.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Are we to understand that the post-war policy of the Ministry of Health is to segregate old people into separate dwellings rather than to leave them among the rest of the population?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, I think if the hon. Member will look at the reply, he will see that we are calling attention to the type of accommodation most suitable for old people.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Will the hon. Lady take as an example the houses provided by

Glasgow Corporation just outside Glasgow as an indication of what can be done?

Miss Horsbrugh: There are several very good examples. I could tell the hon. Member of a very good one in Dundee.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

National Health Insurance

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that materials used for treatment of special diseases prescribed by doctors under the National Health Insurance Act are exorbitantly priced and, in one case, rose from £1 10s. to £30 a ton; and whether he will take steps to have such materials prepared under Government control at the minimum cost?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. and learned Friend is not aware of the facts stated by my hon. Friend. He understands from him that the Question relates particularly to pancreas glands used in making insulin. I am informed that the price of these glands is now slightly less than in 1922, though considerably higher than at the outbreak of war. But the price of the raw material has only a slight effect on the price of insulin itself, which has fallen very much since insulin was introduced in 1923 and is not now much higher than just before the war. My right hon. and learned Friend does not see any necessity for instituting such control as is suggested in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Edwards: If the facts are as stated and if offal was sold at 30s. per ton before insulin was discovered and at £30 a ton afterwards, somebody must be getting the profit. Is it not right that the matter should be looked into, when the life of people depends upon it, so that they should get it with the least possible cost and there should be no profiteering?

Miss Horsbrugh: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the case is as I have stated. This matter of the price of insulin has been looked at on several occasions, as some hon. Members know. The facts are as I have stated them.

Mr. Edwards: Does the Minister deny that since the discovery of insulin the price of offal has risen from 30s. to £30 per ton? Surely that cannot be justified.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Health whether he will explain the purpose of the change in National Health Insurance effected by the National Health Insurance (Additional Benefits) Amendment Regulations, 1943 (S.R. & O., 1943, No. 1515)?

Miss Horsbrugh: The purpose of the Regulation to which my hon. Friend refers is to widen the field for the supply of artificial eyes to insured persons who are in need of these appliances and are entitled to obtain them as part of ophthalmic benefit under the National Health Insurance Acts. The field of supply had previously been limited to opticians and the manufacturers of artificial eyes; by the Regulation in question it is now extended to include firms which, although not manufacturers, are customarily engaged in the supply and fitting of such eyes.

Mr. Etherton: Might it not be desirable to include that explanation in an explanatory memorandum? Will the hon. Lady bear in mind the desirability of explanatory memoranda with Regulations of this nature, particularly in view of the undertaking that the Government have given in this regard?

Miss Horsbrugh: Certainty, Sir, but it was thought that this Regulation concerning eyes was fairly clear and distinct.

Tubercular Patients

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received from the Corporation of Liverpool during the past 12 months as to the shortage of beds for tuberculosis patients in the Liverpool area; what reply he has given to the Corporation; and whether he will make a statement to the House on this matter?

Miss Horsbrugh: Proposals for providing additional beds for tuberculosis cases in Liverpool by an extension of one of the Corporation's hospitals have recently been discussed between representatives of the Corporation and of the Ministry, and the Corporation has been informed of my right hon. Friend's approval of this project in principle. The plans for the extension are under immediate consideration.

Mr. Kirby: May I ask the hon. Lady whether her Ministry is fully seized with the urgency of this problem, having in

mind the large number of persons suffering from this complaint and unable to get beds?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, I think we are. The difficulty of course is again materials, labour and staff.

Dr. Haden Guest: Has the Minister considered the question of using some of the accommodation available in the emergency hospitals provided for military purposes, a large part of which accommodation at the present time is not used and is not now, I think, likely to be used to its full extent?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes. Some of this accommodation is being used and has been used for some time. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that this accommodation is not likely to be used to its fullest extent.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that tuberculosis patients at the Sully Hospital, who are not likely to be discharged for periods over six months, have had their allowances terminated; and whether he will take steps to have the whole position examined?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any failure to apply the tuberculosis allowances scheme correctly to patients at the Sully Hospital, or of the application of a condition in such terms as my hon. Friend suggests, but I will look into any individual case of complaint if he will send me particulars.

Service Patients (Christmas Amenities)

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Health whether his Circular 2884 issued to local authorities and others notifying them that 6d. per head may be granted to wounded soldiers, sailors and airmen for Christmas amenities, represents his final decision upon the amount adequate for the men's needs and generous enough at this season?

Miss Horsbrugh: This authority to incur extra expenditure on Christmas amenities for Service patients was issued to hospitals in the emergency hospital scheme at the request of the Ministers for the Service Departments and is not a matter for my right hon. Friend's decision.

Mr. Leach: Will the hon. Lady consider withdrawing this rather paltry Order and substituting something more in accordance with her own generous instincts?

Miss Horsbrugh: I would point out that we have been asked to do this by the Service Ministries. I do not quite see why the generous instinct of an individual should not be shown to an individual patient or patients in hospital. It is not necessary to do it out of public funds.

Mr. Leach: The hon. Lady's Ministry is adopting these proposals and surely can alter the Order under these circumstances?

Miss Horsbrugh: No; perhaps I did not make it clear to the hon. Member that the Services Ministries asked us, as agents, to allow this grant where there are Service patients in the emergency hospitals.

Mr. McGovern: Will the hon. Lady warn the hospital authorities to see that Service patients do not get intoxicated over the festive season with this 6d.?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think hon. Members will agree when they go to hospitals at Christmas time that a great deal is done for and is appreciated by the patients?

Mr. McEntee: Did the Service Departments in asking for this concession ask specifically for 6d.?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, the amount was laid down.

Mr. John Dugdale: Does this mean that in this particular case, as in many others, the Ministry is prepared to depend on private charity?

Miss Horsbrugh: My opinion is that Christmas season's gifts and giving pleasure to other people may be called by the hon. Member private charity, but I am glad that it still exists.

Major Manningham-Buller: Can the hon. Lady give any idea of the total amount involved in this giving of 6d. a head?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, I am afraid I cannot without notice. It is quite a considerable sum, which will be used in the hospitals for entertaining and brightening the time for the patients.

Institution Inmates (Pocket Money)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to enable public assistance committees, who so desire, to grant in suitable instances pocket money to inmates of public assistance institutions who are under 65 years of age?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend has noted this question for consideration at an appropriate opportunity, but he certainly could not undertake to introduce legislation in the sense suggested in the early future.

Mr. Lipson: Can the hon. Lady say when this consideration will be forthcoming?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am afraid I cannot answer that.

Service Men's Children (Residential Nurseries)

Sir A. Southby: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties at present experienced by the wives of men serving in His Majesty's Forces who, having to enter hospital for illness or confinement, are unable to make arrangements for their children, other than sending them to some public institution; and whether arrangements will be considered for the provision of residential hostels to which such children could be sent?

Miss Horsbrugh: My right hon. Friend is aware of the difficulty referred to. Some provision for such cases is already made by welfare authorities and by means of the residential nurseries established under the Government evacuation scheme. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular cases in mind, I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Sir A. Southby: Does the hon. Lady not realise that the present arrangements do not really meet the case, and would she consult with the Ministers of the Service Departments to see whether some special arrangements cannot be made which would deal with the cases that arise among the wives of Service men?

Miss Horsbrugh: I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that my right hon. Friend has discussed this matter with the Service Departments. It simply comes down to the difficulty of staff. If the Minister of Labour gives us more staff it will be possible to make further arrangements.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that there is a great shortage of places to which to send these children, and that some of these places, under the direction of the Ministry of Health, have charged as much as 36s. 6d. a week?

Miss Horsbrugh: In these nurseries, which are run under the Government evacuation scheme, the accommodation is exactly the same for every child. The noble Lady is referring to a particular area, where the local authority had not room in their home for a child. In such cases the local authority would have to pay, in order to send the child to another home, the amount it would cost to keep the child in their own home.

Mr. Molson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Soldiers,' Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association are maintaining residential nurseries of this kind for the special benefit of the wives of serving men?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes. It is through the help of the Ministry of Health that they obtained the buildings, and I have been in close touch with them. They have the same difficulty as we all have because of the shortage of staffs.

Nurses' Salaries Committee (Second Report)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to make any statement about the Second Report of the Nurses' Salaries Committee and the action he proposes to take thereon?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received the Committee's Second Report from my noble Friend Lord Rushcliffe. The Report deals with male nurses in hospitals, with nurses employed in the public health services, with nurses engaged in domiciliary work, and with trained nurses employed in nurseries. The Report is being presented as a Command Paper, and copies will be available to-day in the Vote Office. Hon. Members will see from the Report that, as with the Committee's First Report, the work has been detailed and complicated and that the Report covers the ground very comprehensively. My right hon. Friend is to-day communicating with local authorities, the British Hospitals Association, and the Queen's Institute of District Nursing, commending to them the recommendations as to salaries, emoluments, and conditions of service, and informing them of the grant which is payable, as in the case of the previous Report. Hon. Members will join with my right hon. Friend in thanking the Committee and

their noble Chairman on the conclusion of this part of their work.

Mr. W. Brown: Will the House have an opportunity of discussing this Report before it is commended to the local authorities? The first Report was carried through without such an opportunity being given.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Are the recommendations of the Report more generous than those of the last Report?

Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps if the hon. Lady will read the Report she will form her own opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BOUNDARIES)

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the appointment of a committee to make recommendations for the revision, if necessary, of the present boundaries of local governments and for the representation of the electorate in those authorities?

Miss Horsbrugh: The matters to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers could not adequately be considered apart from a comprehensive inquiry into the general machinery of Local Government. For the reasons indicated in the reply given on 22nd September by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills) and my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), the Government do not propose to institute such an inquiry at the present time.

Sir A. Knox: Is the hon. Lady aware that local authorities are very much worried about the future? Some of their powers have been filched from them, and they do not know where they stand.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think that local authorities need not at present be worried about these things. I think it would be more worrying if a complete inquiry began at this moment, as they would not then know how they were to carry on in the difficult period immediately after the war.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Is the hon. Lady aware that if they do not start worrying now, it may be too late?

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Covent Garden Opera House and National Theatre, London

Mr. Colegate: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning (1) whether, when the replanning of London is under consideration, he is prepared to take steps to preserve the Covent Garden Opera House for use as an opera house, and to provide it with properly-planned approaches;
(2) whether he is taking steps to see that a suitable site is provided for the proposed national theatre in London?

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): It will be for the local planning authority, in the first instance, to consider for what purposes land should be allocated and how existing buildings should be dealt with. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bring his suggestions to their notice.

Mr. Colegate: Are we to understand that the Minister is not going to give any direction at all to local authorities where buildings or sites of national importance are concerned?

Mr. Morrison: We shall watch what is done by the local authorities, but I think that they have the point in which my hon. Friend is interested well under consideration at present.

Viscountess Astor: While they watch we shall pray.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in giving consideration to the Covent Garden Opera House proposal, bear in mind this is very nearly the only country in Europe which has not subsidised grand opera?

Mr. Morrison: I will bear that point in mind.

Land Values

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, in view of the recommendation contained in the Uthwatt Report regarding the land values ceiling at 31st March, 1939, why it is not possible to consider to-day's values as well; and whether he will issue instructions that purchases, if any, should not be made above the 1943 or 1939 ceiling, whichever is the lower.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The adoption of the recommendation referred to would not entail purchase at prices above the market value at the time of purchase. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Mr. Robertson: asked the Minister of Pensions why he refuses to meet the account of the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society for the funeral expenses of a Streatham soldier who died of tuberculosis at Ventnor after long service in France and the Middle East.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): As I have explained in correspondence with the hon. Member, a payment has already been made to the undertakers on behalf of the relatives in accordance with the scale approved for those cases in which the responsibility for funeral arrangements is assumed by the family.

Mr. Robertson: Is it not a fact that the arrangements made for this funeral, comprising a motor hearse and one coach, could not be reduced, and is not the scale quite inadequate if it does not meet these reasonable expenses? Is it not his duty to get powers to improve the scale?

Sir W. Womersley: My Ministry undertake to convey the body from the hospital where the person has died to the person's home town, and then to carry out all the funeral arrangements, without any cost to the relatives. If the relatives object to this, and undertake to do it themselves, and run up a very extravagant bill, it would not be fair to pay out of public funds that amount. But we are quite prepared to deal with the arrangements ourselves.

Major Manningham-Buller: What were the reasonable expenses charged by this co-operative society?

Sir W. Womersley: The bill from the society amounted to £40 0s. IId. According to my Regulations, we were able to pay £16 18s., which we have paid.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions why a totally disabled captain of the last war receives £30 a year less pension than a captain of the present war suffering the same disability; and will he take steps to make the pensions the same for all ranks for both wars?

Sir W. Womersley: The increased rate payable in respect of the present war arises from a change in classification which originated after the end of the Great War, and I could not agree that it should be extended to officers whose war service had already terminated before the change was introduced.

Mr. Lipson: In view of the dissatisfaction which this matter has caused, does my right hon. Friend not think that this is one of a number of anomalies which might very well be considered by a Select Committee of this House?

Sir W. Womersley: No, Sir. It was one of the anomalies which existed before, and which we tried to remedy that caused the further anomaly.

Mr. De la Bère: It does not matter how it arose; we want to put it right now.

Sir W. Womersley: We have put it right.

Major Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the concession abolishing the need qualification for the award of family allowances with disability retired pay, granted to officers disabled in the present war, can be extended to officers of the Great War?

Sir W. Womersley: I am glad to be able to tell the hon. and gallant Member that I have now obtained authority to pay family allowances in addition to the normal disability retired pay of officers of the Great War without the test of pecuniary need hitherto required. The allowances will be at the same rates as for officers of the present war, and will be subject to the usual condition that marriage took place before disablement except where the officer is seriously disabled and in receipt of the unemployable supplement. The new arrangement will operate as from the beginning of the present month. Cases will be considered on application, as my Department usually has no information as to an officer's family. The change will not apply to the small group of officers of the Great War in receipt of special rates of

disability retired pay which have no counterpart in the present regulations.

Mr. Holdsworth: Are any special steps being taken to give publicity to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made?

Sir W. Womersley: I thought it to be my duty to announce this to the House of Commons first, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall make every endeavour to make it known throughout the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE AND EVACUATION AREAS

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) and 164 other hon. Members about the defence and evacuation areas; and whether an early opportunity will be given to debate this Motion?

[That in the opinion of this House it is desirable that a Departmental Committee should be appointed to consider the position of the Defence and Evacuation Areas and to report what steps are necessary or desirable for the alleviation of present hardships and for the reinstatement of the means of livelihood of the populations of these areas.]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have considered this Motion. The hardships which have befallen many of the inhabitants of the areas evacuated under the Defence Regulations, serious though I know them to be, are not by any means confined to them. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that the Defence (Evacuated Areas) Regulations, 1940, gave a considerable measure of relief from their current liabilities to persons who evacuated from these districts. The reinstatement of the livelihood of these populations will be considered as part of the Government's examination of the problems of reconstruction, and I do not think there is any need for the establishment of a Departmental Committee. I have noted the request for a Debate. The subject would seem to me to be one that might well have been raised on the general Debate on the Address. I cannot hold out any prospect of an early day being made available for the Motion.

Major Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the beginning of this Session, we, as private Members, agreed to give up our rights of Private Members' time, on the condition that the Government, if there were a widespread desire for a Debate in the House, would give time for that Debate? Surely the fact that 165 Members have signed the Motion indicates a widespread desire?

Mr. Attlee: I quite agree, but one of the principal opportunities for such a Debate would have been the Debate on the Address. I should have thought that this matter might well have been ventilated then.

Sir A. Southby: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider whether in this new Session the time has not come for the Government to give time for the discussion of specific Motions on the Order Paper to which a substantial number of Members have appended their names?

Mr. Shinwell: Surely my right hon. Friend does not rule out the possibility of some time being made available during this Session for discussing this Motion, or any other?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend is quite right. I said "an early day." I did not by any means rule out a discussion. There are many opportunities for raising this matter, and I pointed out one of them. Members will be well advised to take such opportunities. I do not think there is any possibility of an early day being given.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Milk Production

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that a considerable number of milk producers are changing from milk production to other forms of farming owing to continued changes of regulations and interference by Government Departments; and to what extent the present abnormal drop of milk supplies has been added to by the decline in the number of producer-retailers?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I have no evidence which suggests that a considerable number of milk producers are giving up milk production. There has not been an abnormal drop in milk supplies. During the year ending 30th September last sales were larger than

in any other war year. Sales in October, 1943, were, with one exception, the highest recorded for any month of October.

Tubercular Cows

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to control the disposal of cows which have reacted to the tuberculin test, with a view to preventing further infection?

Mr. Hudson: Control on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would, I am afraid, not serve any useful purpose in view of the very much larger number of untested cattle which, if tested, would react. Reaction to the test does not, of course, in itself imply infection in the milk of a reactor.

Mr. Price: Is it not a fact that reactors at present tend to get on to the market and to spread infection, and is that not a matter which the Ministry should take into consideration?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir, I do not think you can say that it is a fresh infection, because the herds are already severely infected.

Fertilisers (Sale)

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take steps to protect the public from the sale of small packets of fertilisers which, on analysis, are found to be of no value?

Mr. Hudson: If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars of the cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider them. If allotment holders and private gardeners purchase National Grow-more Fertiliser, they will have a satisfactory fertiliser at a reasonable price.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Indians, South Africa (Status)

Mr. Ammon: asked the Secretary of State for India what communications His Majesty's Government in London or in India have had with the Government of South Africa concerning the discrimination in Natal against Indians possessing landed or house property, and with particular regard to the prosecution of P. R. Pather?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): As regards communications between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Union of South Africa, I would refer the hon. Member


to the reply given him on 4th May by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, to which I have nothing to add. I have not received the text of the Government of India's representations to the South African Government, but their general purport was to take strong exception to the proposed legislation and to suggest various alternative solutions which the South African Government were unable to accept. I have no information regarding the prosecution of Pather except that I have received a telegram purporting to be from his advocate.

Earl Winterton: Can we have a little more information on this subject, and, in particular, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether His Majesty's Government are supporting the Government of India, in view of the widespread feeling in India, both among Europeans and Indians, about the treatment of these Indians by the South African Government?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that feeling, but in accordance with what has been the practice now for some considerable time in Imperial relations, this matter is one which is dealt with directly between the Government of India and the Government of the Union of South Africa.

Mr. Sorensen: What is the position of Indians in South Africa, particularly in Durban, who have protested against what they feel to be entirely unfair treatment of themselves, and have they no redress?

Earl Winterton: Do I understand from the reply that under the Statute of Westminster it is not open to His Majesty's Government to support another Government, namely, the Government of India, in a protest which they make?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir, I would not say that. It is always open to His Majesty's Government to make any representation to any other Government in the Empire or outside on any matter, but in accordance with usage and convention, even before the Statute of Westminster and going back to the Conferences of 1921 and of 1923, these matters have been left primarily for the Governments of the Empire to deal with each other, and in this respect India has long been recognised as enjoying the status of a Dominion Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it be too much, in view of the representations made to hon. Members on this subject, to mention—I shall not say remind—to the Union of South Africa that every citizen of the British Commonwealth of Nations has democratic rights?

Mr. Amery: Questions of citizenship are in every member of the Commonwealth a matter for the Parliament of that Commonwealth itself.

Mr. Sloan: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has told us now he can offer no protection whatever to these Indian citizens?

Mr. Amery: I understand that the persons mostly affected are not Indian citizens; they are British subjects of South Africa of Indian origin.

Indian Seamen (Conditions of Service)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the complaints of the All India Seamen's Centre, 35, Portree Street, Poplar, E.14, against the low wages and unfair conditions of employment covering Indian seamen; and whether his Department is interesting itself in this problem?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, I have forwarded a memorandum by the All India Seamen's Centre to the Government of India, who already have under active consideration the conditions of service of Indian seamen. In the meantime I am glad to say that steps were taken some time ago to alter the methods of recruitment at Calcutta and to improve shore accommodation in this country.

Mr. Davies: Is there any Department of State in India akin to our own Ministry of Labour which interests itself in the conditions of employment of Indian seamen, and will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these seamen are employed on British-owned ships and that we therefore have some responsibility in the matter?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, there is, of course, an efficient Department of Labour of the Government of India, but I understand the question of seamen comes under the Department of Commerce and is engaging the active consideration of the member of the Executive Council in charge of that Department.

Food Situation

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further statement to make respecting the Indian famine; the number of deaths from famine in Bengal to the latest date; how many persons are now being fed by public authorities and voluntary bodies; to what extent cholera has spread; and what is the present position of the food shortage in other parts of India?

Mr. Amery: The most important development in the Indian food situation in the last few weeks is that the main rice crop, which is just coming to harvest, is reported to be excellent, particularly in Bengal. Military assistance in Bengal is getting into its stride, and the outlying centres, as well as Calcutta, are now receiving adequate supplies, though distribution from those centres to the more remote villages still presents a problem. Plans for rationing in urban areas are proceeding and should be in operation in Calcutta by the middle of this month. Deaths in Calcutta for the fortnight ending 28th October totalled 3,132. I cannot give figures for Bengal as a whole. It is reported that 2,233,000 people are being fed daily from free food kitchens.
I regret to say that a serious outbreak of cholera in Bengal has followed upon the famine. During October deaths in the Province from this disease averaged 5,349 per week. In the first week of November they were 4,464. Assistance in the provision of doctors and medical equipment is being provided by the Army and a mass inoculation campaign is being planned. Some drugs are being flown from this country.
As regards the other difficult areas, Bombay is improving its position, and the crops in Bijapur, where they failed last year, are reported good. The Malabar and Cochin area is still very short of foodgrains, but equitable distribution is being maintained, and supplies have been arranged from Sind. In Madras it has been found possible to close all famine camps with the exception of a few in Anantapur and labourers are employed on normal agricultural work. Elsewhere the position gives no particular ground for anxiety.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it that although there is a slight improvement throughout the greater part of Bengal, famine still rages severely? Is the Minis-

ter satisfied that everything that can be done is being done? Further, is he aware that some weeks ago I asked about the spread of cholera and the provision of medicines and drugs, which, at that time, the right hon. Gentleman said was unnecessary? Does he realise now that it would have been much better to have take action then regarding cholera?

Mr. Amery: If I may answer the last part of the hon. Member's Supplementary Question first, when I replied to him on 17th October I had no information from India giving ground for anxiety. I suggested that there was no undue spread of cholera—although I did mention that there was some—or any special deficiency in drugs. I undertook to inquire from the Government of India, and I subsequently heard in November that cholera was very much on the increase and that there was a deficiency in certain drugs. As I pointed out in my answer, vigorous measures are being taken, and drugs are being sent from this country, some of them by air. As regards the general situation, there are still elements of disquiet owing to the difficulty of getting food to the more outlying villages. Broadly speaking, there is sufficient food in the Province to meet all its requirements. The Government of India have undertaken to look after Calcutta itself for the next 13 months leaving all the crops available in Bengal for country districts.

Viscountess Astor: Has the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), who asks so many Questions about India, ever been there? If not, is it not about time that we sent him?

Sir A. Southby: asked the Secretary of State for India whether any special steps have been taken in Bengal to ensure that adequate relief measures are brought to the families of Indian seamen?

Mr. Amery: Village food committees in Bengal have been instructed by the Bengal Government to give particular attention to the families of seamen serving overseas and district magistrates have been asked to take special measures to ensure adequate relief for them wherever necessary. In Calcutta cheap grain shops have been opened for serving seamen and their families exclusively. The prospects of this year's crop in the districts from which most seamen come are above; average.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the very natural apprehension of these Indian seamen, who are serving both in the Royal Navy and the Merchant Service and who are bound to be away from home by reason of their service?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, that is why the Government of India are taking the measures to which I have referred.

Political Detainees

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether the the food situation in India and measures to be taken respecting this was the sole business of the recent two days' conference between the Governor General and the provincial governors; whether political matters in conjunction with food shortage were also considered; and whether the release of political detainees is being considered?

Mr. Amery: The conference was held for the purpose of an exchange of views and not to take executive decisions. I understand that the food situation and post-war reconstructtion were the main subjects discussed. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of recent incidents, would it not be advisable to release political prisoners in India, seeing the excellent example which has been set?

Mr. Amery: There is no connection between the two matters.

Mr. Sorensen: There is this difference. No one can accuse the political detainees in India of ever being sympathetic to Japanese or Fascist aggression.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not essential to give them a little food before stuffing them with politics?

Civil Servants' Wives

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for India whether any decision has yet been arrived alt with regard to the wives of some 200 civil servants who are anxious to rejoin their husbands in India?

Mr. Amery: Passenger accommodation for civilian needs continues to be extremely scarce. The Government of India are undertaking an examination into the cases of wives awaiting passages with a view to allocating such few Pas-

rages as may become available to those whose circumstances involve the most serious hardship. The number of berths likely to be available is, however, very few indeed and I am afraid that there is little probability of the position improving in the near future, or, consequently, of any considerable number of these distressing cases being relieved.

Archaeological Work

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House any information about the archaeological work of the Indian Government, especially the proportion of Indians and Europeans employed?

Mr. Amery: Archaeological work in India, as in other countries, has of necessity suffered somewhat as a result of war conditions, but the Government of India are considering the question of strengthening the Department. On 1st January, 1942, the latest date for which figures are available, the strength of the superior staff of the Archaeological Department was one European and 14 Indians.

Mr. Hannah: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that we are doing the utmost we possibly can to show Indians our deep sympathy with their glorious past?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, I hope so. [Laughter.]

Mr. Hannah: It is not a joke.

Mr. Amery: No. This is one of the matters which is naturally entrusted to the Government of India themselves, a Government in which, I might add, Indian members are in the large majority.

Mr. Hannah: Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (POLITICAL FUTURE)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for Burma whether in order to counter Japanese propaganda he can make a statement regarding the political future of Burma after its re-conquest?

The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery): I have nothing to add to the answer to a Question by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 22nd April, except that the best counter to Japanese propaganda is Allied victory.

Mr. Dugdale: While I agree with the last part of the statement, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that the Burmese opposition to Japanese aggression would be far more resolute if the Burmese people knew what they are fighting for as well as what they are fighting against?

Mr. Amery: As I pointed out in my previous answer, the general policy of this Government towards Burma has been made amply clear on more than one occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — THREE-POWER CONFERENCE, NORTH AFRICA (PREMATURE BROADCAST)

Major C. S. Taylor: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that the news about the Conference between the Prime Minister, President Roosevelt and General Chiang Kai-shek was broadcast yesterday morning on the European Service in a programme relayed by the B.B.C. and why this broadcast was permitted to take place many hours before news was made available to the British Press or the B.B.C. Home Service programme?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): My hon. and gallant Friend must be referring to a report about the Conference based on a Press message from Lisbon which was included in an official American programme to Europe. Although this report was given over a B.B.C. transmitter, neither the Ministry of Information nor the B.B.C. have any responsibility for the decision to broadcast it.

Major Taylor: But if this news is broadcast to Europe through the agency of a transmitter in this country, surely the Ministry of Information must accept that responsibility for that broadcast?

Mr. Bracken: No. We have given a certain amount of time to the American publicity authorities. We do not censor what they put out, and unless we withdraw that time we cannot take responsibility for what use they make of that transmitter.

Sir Herbert Williams: Do I understand, then, that if someone in America sends me a gramophone record of a Secret Session, I can reproduce it here?

Mr. Bracken: There is no analogy whatsoever.

Sir Irving Albery: In view of the fact that the machinery of the B.B.C. is paid for out of public funds is it not quite impossible for my right hon. Friend to disclaim responsibility?

Mr. Bracken: I am not disclaiming it at all. I accept responsibility for giving this time to our Allies. We get considerable concessions from broadcasting companies in the United States in relation to British news. I think it is very unfortunate that all these leakages occur. I have seen four or five of these Conferences, and I am absolutely certain that publicity arrangements will always break down because they depend upon three or four nations. All sorts of people do their best to preserve secrets, but they leak out, and the best thing, I think, is either to have no publicity at all or full publicity.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: This point is of some importance. The imminence of the Conference taking place leaked out from Washington about ten days ago. Is it not important that a statement of the results of such a highly important Conference should be made contemporaneously by agreement, and ought not His Majesty's Government to make representations to the United States to get a common practice in this matter?

Mr. Bracken: As a matter of fact the Press here were placed in a difficult position by the fact that this broadcast was made yesterday, but we gave an undertaking that we would follow a certain publicity programme, and I decided that we must fulfil our undertaking, whatever happened. As regards the leakage from Washington, there has been a good deal of speculation in America. I am quite certain that there has been no bad faith in this matter, but so many people are in this secret, and if somebody falls down you must not blame the American authorities, because they sometimes protest against the British Press scooping them. This sort of case can go on for ever. When you have 60 or 70 of the best journalists in the world, and the most enterprising, together at Quebec or Cairo, and you do not give them any news whatever, what do they do? They send whizzing messages to their papers at home, and they always end up by blaming the Ministry of Information.

Mr. Shinwell: On the subject of leakages, has the right hon. Gentleman observed in this morning's Press a report of the speech by the High Commissioner for Canada, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald), to the effect that another Conference, mentioning the names of the personalities who are likely to be present, is about to take place?

Mr. Stokes: It was in the "Daily Worker" last week.

Mr. Bracken: I did see a report of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who is acting as British High Commissioner in Canada, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down any Question about this so-called disclosure, he must put it to the Dominions Secretary. I shall get a lot of messages from America blaming us for any leakage.

Mr. Simmonds: How was it, in view of the secrecy with which the Government desired to surround this Conference, that it happens that the original factual report of Reuters correspondent at Lisbon was allowed to pass via this country to Washington through channels under the control of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Bracken: We have a rule that if anything is published in a foreign capital, we will not censor it when it passes through London. That is the rule. Whether it is a wise rule or not, I do not know.

Mr. Greenwood: May I put my Question again? The right hon. Gentleman really side-stepped what is the major issue. I am not challenging his right of censorship or of giving time, but I ask that the Government should give careful consideration to approaches being made to Allied Governments, particularly that of the United States, with a view to adopting a common practice and simultaneous publication of big news of great importance to everybody.

Mr. Bracken: There is an absolutely clear understanding between our Allies and ourselves. There is a programme made out, but on several occasions it has not been fulfilled. I will certainly do all I can to get the absolute concurrence of the authorities in Washington, but, in fairness to them, it must be said that they, too, complained bitterly that we

in Britain are constantly scooping them on news. I have plenty of records. Something must be done about these Conferences. In my opinion, they ought to be absolutely security conferences in future.

Sir A. Southby: Have any representations on this particular point been made to the United States Government, and, if not, will my right hon. Friend use this as an opportunity for approaching them?

Mr. Bracken: They got a little ahead of us, and made the strongest possible representations about Reuters conduct in Lisbon, but we have no responsibility for the governance of Lisbon or for Reuters. I feel that I could only reply that the British Government could take no responsibility for it, but the whole business ought to be straightened out, and it ought to be done on the basis of absolute security, and journalists should not go to these capitals getting no news of any kind and wasting their time and their papers time. If Governments are not willing to give news about these Conferences, they ought not to invite the Press to be present.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. G. Strauss: May I raise a point of Order on the general subject of Questions? There are 35 down to-day to the Home Secretary, and it was impossible to reach any of them. I suggest that it is a very-bad thing for the House if it is impossible during the course of the week to ask any Questions of the Home Secretary, and, if that were to continue over a series of two or three weeks, it would be a very serious thing indeed. I should like to ask whether it is possible to alter the arrangements or take some steps by which it is possible for Members to question the Home Secretary.

Mr. Speaker: There were a great number of Questions on the Paper before the Home Secretary's Department was reached. Also Members are rather inquisitive and put a very large number of supplemen-taries. The remedy is largely in the hands of Members themselves. If they insist on a large number of Supplementary Questions, we can only deal with a smaller number of Questions on the Paper.

Dr. Haden Guest: On this occasion the reason for the congestion of Questions to the Home Secretary is the fact that it was not possible to put them down until last


week. This was the first occasion on which any Questions to the Home Secretary could possibly appear. It is in the highest degree unsatisfactory not to be able to get replies. I have one myself about the publication of documents in the Mosley case and other important Questions. It seems to me that on this occasion special arrangements for answering these Questions should have been made.

Mr. Speaker: That would require an alteration of the Rules of the House. We cannot do it now.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Why are the Home Secretary's Questions always so late? The first is No. 62.

Mr. Speaker: It is the case that Questions to the Home Secretary come earlier on certain days. The various Departments take their turn in being early or late during each series of Sittings.

COALMINING (COMPULSORY RECRUITMENT)

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): My right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power announced in the House on 12th October that it would be necessary to call up men for the coalmines in the same way as they are called up for the Armed Forces. A scheme for the selection of men for this purpose has now been worked out and will begin to operate shortly. The selection will be made from men born on or after 1st January, 1918, who would otherwise be called up for the Armed Forces and are placed in medical grade I or in grade II if their disability is foot defects only. My object has been to devise a scheme that will be recognised as fair and which would not place the duty upon the officials of my Department of selecting according to merit or suitability. I therefore propose to resort to the most impartial method of all, that of the ballot. A draw will be made from time to time of one or more of the figures from 0 to 9 and those men whose National Service Registration Certificate numbers happen to end with the figure or figures thus drawn by ballot will be transferred to coalmining. In the interests of fairness as between individuals the exclusion from the ballot will be limited to three classes of men only who I think it will

be obvious must be kept for other duties; they are (1) men accepted for flying duties in the R.A.F. or Fleet Air Arm; (2) men accepted as artificers in submarines; and (3) men in a short list of highly skilled occupations who are called up only for certain service trades and are not even accepted as volunteers for coalmining. I propose to make arrangements for special medical examination of any man who claims that there are medical reasons why he is not fit for coalmining before he is sent to a training centre. Arrangements will also be made for men to be medically examined again at a later stage with special reference to their fitness for underground work, and so far as possible this will be done at the training centre before they are finally posted to a colliery. Individuals whose call up to the Forces would be postponed on the grounds of exceptional hardship will not be transferred to coalmining.
Men selected for coalmining work who have had no previous experience of the industry will be given four weeks' preliminary training both in classes and in actual underground practice at special training centres organised for the purpose by my Department in consultation with the Ministry of Fuel and Power. On completion of the training at a training centre they will be directed to working collieries for employment where (subject to special conditions in South Wales) they will be given further training for a fortnight before being employed on work below ground and for a period of at least four weeks after starting regular underground work they will come under the personal supervision of an experienced miner. There will be similar supervision for a sufficient time whenever they change from one class of work to another. Except in South Wales they will not go to work at the coal face until they have had at least four months underground experience. During the period of surface training they will be paid not less than the surface worker's rate. The men selected will be given an opportunity of stating a preference for a particular coal field, and an endeavour will be made to post men in accordance with their expressed preference, but it is impossible to guarantee this as a number of considerations must be kept in mind in posting men, such as the kind of coal produced, the productivity


of the pit, and the availability of living accommodation. The Ministry of Fuel and Power will decide to what pits the men are to be directed.
In conclusion I want to say that the Government would not have resorted to this scheme of compulsion had it not been for the most urgent national necessity. There is no form of service which at this stage of the war is in greater need of young active recruits. Those who are chosen for transfer to coalmining will be doing their war service in a form that is as important as any, and I am sure that they will do their best to make a success of it.

Mr. George Griffiths: May I ask the Minister whether this matter will be discussed further in the House? While there are some advantages, there are some very great disadvantages involved in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made.

Mr. Bevin: If hon. Members want to discuss this arrangement, they must make approaches through the usual channels. I must begin to put this announcement into operation forthwith, if I am to save the situation in the coal trade for 1944.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Are these men, in order to prevent constant pit stoppages, to be compelled to join the miners' trade union?

Mr. Bevin: The question of joining the union will be dealt with in accordance with the arrangement between the employers and the miners' union. I do not interfere with that, and there is no compulsion behind it. If I know these lads aright, I do not expect trouble over that.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this can be done without fresh legislation, and, if so, under what powers?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, I am entitled to direct anybody anywhere, including the right hon. Member.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. Is it not the case that the Minister has no power of direction over a Member of Parliament?

Mr. Bevin: I apologise. I think I have the power, but I think there is an undertaking—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I

bow to the wiser judgment of my colleagues.

Mr. Stephen: Has this scheme been accepted by the Miners' Federation?

Mr. Bevin: I explained to the Miners' Federation what it was necessary to do, and I undertook to deal with it again if I had to go below 18, but I am under an obligation, under the Act of 1940, to see that these industries are maintained, and this arrangement is, I understand from my right hon. Friend, well known to the Miners' Federation and the mining industry.

Sir G. Shakespeare: Can my right hon. Friend indicate to the House the total number which the Government desire to transfer in this way?

Mr. Bevin: Up to the end of this coal year, which I think is 30th April, 30,000.

Mr. Sloan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are other sources from which man-power could be secured either by taking men from industry or having men sent back from the Army; and would not this secure more than the 30,000 he expects to get by the proposal just outlined?

Mr. McEntee: In view of the very large numbers who may be drafted into particular areas, what provision is being made for housing and other accommodation?

Mr. Bevin: With regard to the question of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War gave an answer earlier in the week which is the Government's policy. Subject to that, we are combing the Services to get as many as we can, and we shall continue to do that, but the situation in the war is such that the Government have decided not to break up field units, in view of the task which is ahead of us. With regard to accommodation, we shall proceed to billet where we can. Where we cannot, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and my Noble Friend the Minister of Works are arranging for accommodation to be established in the areas to which these people will have to go.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of his statement that my right hon.


Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) could be included in this scheme, he will apply it to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Bevin: No. There is no conscription in Northern Ireland.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We have already had a large number of questions on this matter, and I must remind hon. Members that we have to get on with other Business.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. Is it not permissible to draw attention to the fact that if it is proposed to ballot young men into the pits, it is time to ballot the owners out of the pits, because they are responsible for the bad conditions?

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we be told whether we shall have an opportunity to debate this question?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot answer a question on the procedure of the House.

Mr. Pickthorn: Surely somebody must be able to answer.

Mr. Bevin: Perhaps the hon. Member will possess his soul in patience and allow me to continue. I have already said that if hon. Members desire to have a Debate on this I think representations can be made, and I have no doubt that if they are made, they will receive proper consideration.

Hon. Members: Can we have an answer?

Mr. Attlee: I was waiting for a question to be put to me, as had been suggested, on the time of the House; and I would remind hon. Members that it is usual to address a Minister in such a case and not just to call out "Can we have an answer?"

Mr. Colegate: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is not fully conscious that the House must have a Debate on this very important and extremely unusual method of recruiting men, which I believe has never been adopted in this country before?

Mr. Attlee: I am aware of the novelty, and if there is a general desire for a Debate on the subject, representations can be made in the usual way.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be a great help to the mining industry to have a Debate?

Mr. G. Griffiths: I asked that question at the beginning.

Mr. Molson: There was a publication of this announcement in the "Daily Telegraph" yesterday.

Mr. Bevin: I do not know how the "Telegraph" has got it. I have been very careful as the Minister to make these announcements to the House. I certainly have not revealed anything to the Press as far as I know.

Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister say on what day this Order will operate?

Mr. Bevin: Forthwith.

Mr. Maxton: Does that mean that before we have an opportunity of debating the matter it will already be in operation?

Mr. Bevin: The coal situation is such —[Interruption]—I do not believe in the competitive system, and therefore I will not compete with hon Members, but I will answer them if they give me a chance. The coal situation is such that the Government feel that we cannot delay the supply of man-power to get the necessary coal for 1944, and I could not, in view of the representations made to me as Minister of Labour, undertake the responsibility of jeopardising the war effort by any delay. I have delayed this compulsion to the very last possible moment, because I do not like it any mere than do hon. Members, and our having to put it into force now is due to the sheer necessities of the situation.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are prejudicing the coal situation at the moment because we are not making the best use of the men that we have in the industry, largely due to the Government not making up their mind?

Sir J. Lucas: May I ask the Minister why his Department is stopping volunteers for the mines from taking up their employment unless they have relatives in the neighbourhood, even though they have their parents' consent?

Mr. Bevin: I have never heard of any such case.

Mr. A. Bevan: Has there not been ample opportunity for the Minister to consult the House of Commons about the point? Have we not reached a most intolerable position in which Ministers act in this way without consulting the House even when it is sitting? The House has become a Reichstag.

Mr. Bevin: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present on 12th October, when the Minister of Fuel and Power announced in this House the steps that would have to be taken, and, speaking from memory, there was a coal Debate on or about that date. I am speaking from memory, and I do not know whether it was in answer to a Question or an announcement, but it was made perfectly clear in that Debate that steps would have to be taken. Further, in the manpower Debate previous to that I made it perfectly clear that these steps would have to be taken, and if the hon. Members after two announcements over a period of four months have failed to realise the situation, that is not my fault. The only question put to me is that I would not use undue pressure or adopt a priority attitude towards the boys living in the coalfields, and I gave an answer that this conscription would have to be universal, and, on that basis, without any challenge during these months, I have proceeded to develop what I think is the right policy.

Sir William Davison: Surely the present situation could have been forecast a few days ago at any rate, which would have enabled the right hon. Gentleman to make the announcement which he has made today and would have enabled the House, if it had thought fit, to debate this unusual method of recruiting. It places the House in an unfortunate position; it holds a pistol to their head.

Mr. S.O.Davies: Further to the answer just given, did not the Prime Minister the day after, on 13th October, assure this House and the country that there was not the slightest reason to be alarmed regarding coal production in this country, and did not many mining Members in this House at that very moment express their disagreement with the Prime Minister and regret that he had been so misinformed by his advisers?

Mr. Bevin: The Prime Minister spoke in the light of what my right hon. and gallant Friend had stated the day before,

which was very clear. The Prime Minister in discussing the matter and presiding over the Cabinet Committee on Manpower, was fully conversant that this step had got to be taken, and it was with his approval. The announcement I have made to-day is not an alteration of policy at all. It is the method I propose to adopt, and the method I propose to adopt is the only method that I can think of which is fair.

Mr. Hammersley: In connection with the original statement, my right hon. Friend said there would be excluded from the scheme persons with technical qualifications under a short list. Would he tell the House what that short list is?

Sir A. Southby: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that these young men are being directed into the coal industry in lieu of being taken into the Forces before the House has had the opportunity of discussing the matter in detail, any young man who is injured or killed will receive the same compensation as if he had been serving in the Armed Forces; and may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the liberties of this House, whether it can be made dear once and for all that no Minister of the Crown has any right or power to direct any Member of this Honourable House in such a way as to prevent him carrying out his duties as an elected representative of the people?

Mr. Bevin: With regard to compensation, the young man who has been selected to go into the pits will be in precisely the same position as any young man directed to the Mercantile Marine or anywhere else. He will get compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is the law. With regard to the latter part of the question, I thought the House enjoyed a little diversion.

Mr. Denman: On a point of procedure, with every desire to help the Minister who has told us he must operate this at once and in view of the opinion of mining Members that it would facilitate the operation, would you accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance if any mining Member should choose to raise that now?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is a matter that can be discussed now with


advantage. Hon. Members can do that better when they have read the Minister's statement.

Sir A. Southby: Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order and with the greatest respect. I asked you just now a question which I feel I am bound to ask—whether a statement having been made that Members of this House can be directed—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Member requires a considered reply to a statement of that kind, I shall require notice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I now ask the Deputy Prime Minister to state the Business for the next series of Sittings?

Mr. Attlee: The House will be asked to sit an additional day in the next series of Sittings. The Business will be as follows:
The Debate on the Address will be continued on the first, second and third Sitting Days and brought to a conclusion on the fourth Sitting Day. I understand that Mr. Speaker proposes shortly to announce the Amendments which he has decided to select. The third and fourth Sitting Days will be available for a continuation of the general Debate. The Government proposed to conclude the Address on the third Sitting Day, but, as I have already announced, we are giving an extra day, which will no doubt meet the general wishes of the House.
In view of this arrangement, it will be necessary for us to ask for the co-operation of the House in obtaining all stages of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill and of the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Bill by the end of the next series of Sittings. This may necessitate our suspending the Rule on certain days. These Bills are required to be passed into law before the end of the year and it is desirable for them to be sent to another place for consideration during the next series of Sittings.

Mr. Maxton: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had any discussions through the usual channels about giving facilities for the speedy passage of these Bills, but there are some matters of considerable importance

included in the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill. The consideration of Part I of the Mines Act, 1930, is included together with several other controversial matters, and my hon. Friends and I just cannot agree to assist the Government in getting these things through.

Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient if I made a statement now with regard to the Amendments to the Address. I have already announced the Amendment I propose to call on the fourth Sitting Day. On the first day in the next series of Sittings I shall call the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes):
["But humbly regret the admission implicit in the Gracious Speech that your Majesty's advisers have not yet reached definite decisions as to the nature of the legislative and administrative action which should be taken during the coming Session as part of the policy of post-war reconstruction, covering the control of land in the public interest, the provision of employment, social security as envisaged in the Report of Sir William Beveridge on Social Insurance and Allied Services, and the economic changes rendered necessary in the new conditions which will emerge with peace."]
I will make a statement on the next Sitting Day as to the Amendment for the second day.

Mr. Greenwood: Do I understand from that that the Amendment in my name is to be confined to one day? It is the widest Amendment on the Order Paper, and I had hoped we might have a second day.

Mr. Maxton: May I ask you, Sir, whether we here have to sit and listen to various sections of Government supporters discussing how they are going to divide the time of the House? Will it be possible for you to let us know when the opposition elements in this House will have an opportunity of stating their opposition to the King's Speech?

Mr. Speaker: Members have already had three days in which they could express their opposition.

Mr. Greenwood: May I press you further, Mr. Speaker? I gather that you have determined on the first Sitting Day but have not decided what Amendments are to be called later. May I put it to you that it would be for the convenience


of the House if on the next Sitting Day you made a statement as to the Amendments on the other Sitting Days, so that the House will have an opportunity for preparation?

Mr. Speaker: That is what I propose to do. There are a great number of Amendments, and it is rather hard to decide between them.

Sir H. Williams: The Amendment that has been chosen has been put down by a political party which is fully a party to the Government. Is there any reason why they should have more consideration than any other party?

Mr. McEntee: With reference to the point that was raised earlier in regard to the inability of Members to question the Home Office, will the Deputy Prime Minister consider whether it would be possible to have Questions on the fourth Sitting Day?

Mr. Attlee: That matter might be considered.

Mr. Stephen: Would it not facilitate matters if we adopted the full procedure of the Reichstag, seeing that Opposition Members are to be denied opportunities?

Mr. Lipson: When is the Second Reading of the Local Elections Bill to be taken—to-day or in the next series of Sittings?

Mr. Attlee: Not to-day.

BILL PRESENTED

DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT),

"to make further and better provision for enabling persons handicapped by disablement to secure employment, or work on their own account, and for purposes connected therewith"; presented by Mr. Ernest Bevin, supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. T. Johnston, Mr. Willink, Sir Walter Womersley, the Attorney-General, and Mr. Tomlinson; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting day, and to be printed. [Bill 3.]

Orders of the Day — KING'S SPEECH

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS

[Fifth Day]

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question.—[24th November.]
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has address to both Houses of Parliament."—[Commander Brabner.]

Question again proposed.

DOMINION AFFAIRS

Sir Alfred Beit: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
But humbly regret that it has not yet been possible definitely to arrange for an Imperial Conference to consider the closer cohesion of the Commonwealth and Empire after the war.
In opening this Debate on Dominion affairs, I feel, though I may not look like, the sleeping beauty waking and stretching herself after her long slumbers, for more than four years have passed, incredible though that may seem, since the House last discussed this vital matter. Certain aspects of it which I propose to raise have never been discussed by the House at all, It is right and proper that, before proceeding to consider constitutional and other probems, tri-

bute should be paid to the magnificent contribution made by the Dominions to the Allied war effort. Even the one neutral Dominion does not seem to have prevented its man-power from behaving in a commendably unneutral manner, with the result that thousands of citizens of Southern Ireland are to be found in all the Armed Forces of the Crown, while Southern Irish labourers are helping to speed the war effort in Britain and are very properly earning high wages for their trouble. All of this is a great deal better than the rebellion of 1916, which was Ireland's most notorious contribution on the last occasion.
Many famous feats of arms have been performed by Dominion troops in critical theatres of war, and many great sacrifices have been made and grievous losses sustained by them. Let me give a few examples. Let us call to mind the South African triumph in Abyssinia, as well as the tragedy of Tobruk; the gallant performance of the Australians in New Guinea under conditions of appalling hardship; the remarkable exploits of the New Zealand Division in Greece and Crete and in breaking through the Mareth Line in Tunisia. There is, too, Canada's invaluable contribution to the maintenance of the North Atlantic sea routes and to the Allied Air Forces in man-power, training and aircraft, as well as her gallant action at Dieppe, where she suffered such heavy losses. The House will also remember that Rhodesians suffered the first casualties in the first action in the Western Desert at Fort Capuzzo on 12th June, 1940. Last, but by no means least, we desire to pay tribute to the 32,000 natives of the South African Protectorates, volunteers who have played such an important part in the Middle East campaigns from Syria to Tunis in the African Auxiliary Pioneer Corps.
Examples such as these, and there are many others, demonstrate the phenomenal unity of the Empire in two wars in one generation and prove the strength of the bonds which hold it together, but if it has twice fully contributed to the winning of victory, once war has broken out, can it be said that its existing organisation throws its whole weight into the prevention of war? I do not think so. It is, perhaps, a lot to hope that the influence of the United Kingdom and of the Dominions would be sufficient to stop a


determined aggressor as long as the position of the United States is doubtful, but a closer concert of defence within the Empire might reassure and encourage the United States and would certainly be of advantage to the Empire itself. Moreover, the recent Moscow Conference and the debate in the United States Senate point to a significant change of heart on the part of America, and lead us to hope that she will be prepared to take up a more positive position in the future organisation of the world.
Much attention has recently been paid to the problem of how to achieve greater imperial unity for defence, and, indeed for other things as well, and the two principal schools of thought in this connection are based upon Empire federation and regional organisation. I have devoted some study to both of these ideas, on which there exists a considerable literature. The essence of the two schools is perhaps most concisely stated in "Faith and Works," by Mr. Lionel Curtis, for the federal unionists, and in the recent brilliant book on the British Commonwealth by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), whose absence owing to illness we very much deplore, for those who support the regional system. I confess that for reasons which I shall show later I was at one time attracted to Empire federation, but I have been largely turned against it by the realisation that the Dominions, having only achieved self-government in recent times, both in an historical and in an absolute sense, would be unlikely to be willing to sacrifice an important part of their national sovereignty and to revert, to however small an extent, to their previous less independent position. Furthermore, we in this country have already had one sharp experience of what happens when the right to control the raising of revenue is retained in the hands of a body not situated in, nor entirely representative of, the country which has to find that revenue, and it therefore would not really make very much difference if the quarrels which such arrangements always seem to provoke were to be between a Colony and the British Parliament, as in the 18th century, or between a Dominion and a supranational Parliament as proposed by the federationalists. The result would probably be the same.
But I consider that important changes most take place within the Empire if it is

to organise a permanent and effective system for defence and one which will contribute towards the prevention of future wars. The first step in this direction might very reasonably be the establishment of Empire regional councils, responsible to and with authority derived from the Imperial Conference; for all that I have said and will propose during the course of my remarks depends upon the meeting of an Imperial Conference, and that is one thing which the Government have not been able to achieve. My Amendment draws attention to this omission, but in a most friendly spirit, because we know perfectly well, and the Prime Minister has made it clear on more than one occasion, that it is both his and the Government's earnest desire that there should be such a meeting. Consequently, as I say, the Amendment is in no sense hostile. But even though it can be held, as has been stated by the Prime Minister, that the war is the principal reason why it has not yet been possible to call together this Imperial Conference, does not the very fact that its meeting seems to be so infernally difficult to arrange indicate that the machinery of consultation needs renewal and improvement?
It is obvious that if the idea of a federal Parliament with sovereign powers is not to the taste of the Empire, as I am pretty well convinced that it is not, then whatever other arrangements are proposed they must be consultative and based upon co-operation since they cannot be binding. I recognise that co-operation presents one great difficulty. The larger the sphere over which co-operation is sought the less fruitful does it become. That, if I may venture to say so, is the drawback to Mr. Curtin's recent proposal for an all-embracing Empire consultative council, a proposal which has been made before on several occasions and has always, so I am informed, been rejected by either South Africa or Canada. That, of course, was one of the principal troubles of the League of Nations. The area over which it was supposed to operate was altogether too unwieldy. The dissipation or dilution of responsibility and interest which then follows makes fruitful action almost impossible. With these arguments in mind I think the Imperial Conference would do well to convince itself of the desirability of establishing the regional system, with Empire regional councils, thus reducing


areas to those in which a body of peoples with a common interest can be gathered together. None would then feel that any part of the area was not its concern.
The essence of regional organisation is quite well understood, and I certainly do not propose to deliver a lecture to the House on the subject. I am only sorry that illness prevents the hon. Member for Altrincham being here and expanding upon his ideas. I limit myself to saying that the United Kingdom will be involved in all areas, for her interests are worldwide, but each Dominion, I hope, will play a bigger part than formerly in its particular area. I venture to express the hope that each Dominion will also become increasingly associated with the framing of policies for the Crown Colonies in its own particular area, and that the Dominions as a whole will in future provide more and more personnel for the Colonial Service generally.
I see two really important advantages deriving from this scheme. First, that the Empire regional councils complete with permanent secretariats—a most important accompaniment—will give much needed relief to the Imperial Conference itself, which by its very nature suffers from insufficient meetings, an overloaded agenda and no time for details. Second, the association of interested parties within an area will lead to the proper sharing of the costs of defence, and to an agreed rather than an imposed foreign policy, for when all is said and done that is what British hegemony boiled down to in the past. This would correct the constitutional anachronism pointed out in his book by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham that the Dominions enjoy equality of status but not of function. I will make one further point regarding defence. Our lack of a coherent plan with the Dominions in the Far East was just as tragic as the failure to effect an agreed plan with Belgium, whom we had guaranteed, or, for that matter, with Poland or even with Rumania, and is explained by the fact that in theory this country is supposed to be responsible for the defence of the entire Empire, with the exception of local defence, whatever that may mean in these days of total warfare.
I assert that this country can no longer shoulder the burden of global Empire defence, nor would it accord with the dignity and the military achievements of

the Dominions if we did so. In any case, as a result of the war, we do not do so any longer, and the only object of my plea that we should retain this more realistic policy and not revert to the old ways. Canada, for instance, will finish the war with the fourth largest Air Force in the world, if not as the fourth armed Power, and it is clear that she must be prepared to take her share, of responsibility for maintaining peace in the Atlantic and Pacific areas.
It is not only of changes in machinery, essential though they may be, that I wish to speak. The Empire is one of the greatest institutions in the world for the spread of tolerance and of representative government and for the suppression of authoritarianism, of whatever form. Personally, I believe it is the greatest of such institutions, but it has not yet reached the apotheosis of its greatness. That, I believe, to be coming, for great psychological changes are on the way. The Empire has inspired the imagination of thousands of Service men, British and Allied, who have been trained during the war in different parts of it, and of the children who have been evacuated to it, few of whom, owing to the disgraceful lack of education on the subject, knew anything about our overseas responsibilities and opportunities. Many of those men, and I hope of those children—my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) will have something to say on that subject when he speaks—will stay on or go back, and many others will follow. The knowledge of these wonderful countries and of these opportunities will be spread, if not by the Board of Education then at least by those going out and coming home.
I believe, with a firm conviction which I know to be shared by many of my hon. Friends, that the Empire to-day is standing at the threshold of a period of expansion and development which can only be compared with the growth of the United States in the last century, if it is ready to take the chance which is staring it in the face. If the co-operation and greater unity which I have attempted to outline come to fruition this period of expansion could begin almost at once.
I know it was the fashion in some quarters between the wars to run down the Empire. That is a thing of the past, for its shining achievements in war-time


have shamed those narrow-minded propagandists into silence. The Dominions, for their part, need population and capital, not only to make a reality of the promise of a golden future, but also to ensure their defence, and now is the time, if ever there was one, for them to agree ambitious schemes of immigration compared with which the miserable piecemeal achievements of the last 25 years will seem a phantom. Though the British can supply large numbers of artisans and of skilled workers, Great Britain cannot supply the vast numbers of population which are now needed. Australia, for example, has stated that she looks forward to and requires a population of 20,000,000 or more in the next 50 years; a very different state of mind from that which prevailed before the war. New Zealand and Canada also require large accretions of population; while in South Africa, where heavy industry has now become definitely established, there will be a post-war demand for European skilled workers and technical personnel.
The other nations of Europe will therefore have to provide a large proportion of this new movement of population, just as was the case formerly in the United States, to their very great advantage. This will be especially necessary if we hope to see the great country spaces populated, because the British in the Dominions as at home tend rather to crowd into the towns.
The question therefore arises, Need the Empire fear such an admixture? I reply, categorically, "No." Look at the way in which those peoples have become absorbed in the United States. Observe the vigour and the initiative of this new race of mixed blood and observe also their devotion to their new country and their rapid assimilation with its ideals and outlook. I am informed that Canada to-day is only 50 per cent. British in origin, and though that may pose certain special problems, would anybody deny Canada's loyalty to the British connection?

Mr. Hannah: It is a good deal less than 50 per cent.

Earl Winterton: It is 49, actually.

Sir A. Beit: I was not far wrong. Naturally I was taking into account the

existing French population as well as later immigration from other parts of Europe. This rapid assimilation will take place, and has already taken place in the British Commonwealth, in the case of Europeans who have migrated since the advent of British power, thus offsetting, together with British emigrants, the separatist influence of other European elements who were settled before that time, such as the French in Canada and the Dutch in South Africa.
I think I am qualified to speak on this aspect, because I am a case in point. My own father and his elder brother before him went to South Africa, some 70 years ago, from the, free city of Hamburg, as it was in those days, and they afterwards came to this country. I do not imagine that either South Africa or Great Britain has any reason to regret having accepted them, while I, speaking in all humility, can only express my deep sense of gratitude. I would now like to tell the House why it is that I ever looked at the idea of Empire federation, an idea which I have now abandoned, as I have already ponted out, owing to the reasonings of those who have made a greater study of the matter than I. It is because it has always been my dream to see the maximum freedom of movement of men and goods within the Empire and of new citizens to the Empire, in short, to see it one great country economically, if not politically, to the extent which the vast distances separating its various units allow. Even those distances, with the coming of aviation and radio, will be as nothing to-morrow, nothing at all. I am convinced that this freedom and this unity can be achieved without any drastic constitutional changes, if for no other reason than it is in the interest of the Empire that such a development should be brought about. I would rather see anything, even federal union, than an outward drift from the Imperial orbit and from what the Prime Minister has called the golden circle of the Crown.
There was a time, I will not say how long ago, when there was some reason to believe that hon. Members opposite, with the exception of a few Colonial experts, were not, as a body, particularly interested in the matters which we are discussing to-day; but a great change has come over the scene, as must have been evident to those who had the pleasure of seeing


—for he is always worth watching—and hearing the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) deliver his speech in the House last Tuesday. A surprising revelation emerged on that occasion: the Labour Party has discovered the Empire—

Mr. Silverman: Absolute nonsense.

Sir A. Beit: —perhaps the most startling exploit since the days of Vasco da Gama.

Mr. Price: Is not the hon. Member aware that this party has had a committee on Imperial affairs for many years, considering many of the matters to which he is now referring?

Sir A. Beit: I recognise the fact, and I did make an exception in the case of a few Colonial experts.

Mr. Silverman: How many Colonial experts are there on the hon. Member's side?

Sir A. Beit: This party also had its committee on Imperial affairs, but there have been times when Imperial discussions in this House have tended to become moribund. I very much hope that as a result of the war and the greater interest brought about by the lessons of the war, the people who have had an opportunity that they otherwise would not have had of seeing the Empire will take a greater interest, and that there will be greater interest shown on all sides of this House. I was by no means attempting to make a serious attack upon hon. Members opposite when I said what I did. I was merely, pointing out that I was very much impressed, and very touch welcomed the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham last Tuesday.

Mr. Silverman: If the hon. Member says that, does he not consider that he would be fair to withdraw the remark that led to the intervention of my hon. Friend?

Sir A. Beit: No, Sir, and I do not think I would be unfair if I stuck to what I said, because I made ample allowance for the few Members who are Colonial experts.

Mr. Silverman: Evidently the hon. Member does not quite follow my meaning. It seems clear that the number of

Colonial experts in the House on all sides is limited and it always has been so. One of the things that everybody complains of is that Members on both sides of the House have not displayed as much interest in these matters as they might have done. That being so, was it not a little bit unfair of the hon. Member to say that when my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) discovered the Empire it was almost as great an exploit as that of Vasco da Gama?

Sir A. Beit: Once again, I do not think I am being unfair. I was merely recording my general impression. We have only to look around at these benches to see that there is not a very great attendance at the present moment.

Earl Winterton: I would like to make an observation as one who has had 40 years' service in this House, and it is that the lack of interest on Dominion affairs on the part of the House of Commons is a disgrace to this institution, and has been so for 40 years.

Sir A. Beit: The impression I used to have at one time—but I am glad to be able to add that it has been corrected by what was said by the hon. Member for Seaham—was that hon. Members opposite would like to leave undeveloped in the possession of small native populations territories which, if properly developed, could be capable of supporting great, modern communities of vast size. That is the impression I used to have, and I am very happy to welcome the statement made by the hon. Member for Sea-ham, from which it is quite clear that hon. Members opposite have begun to realise the potentialities of the Empire generally and of the Dominions. The hon. Member went on to say that he had come to this conclusion as a result of objective study, and I accept his word. I see no reason to doubt it.
I think it is also quite likely that his action may have been made under the influence of Labour parties in the Dominion parliaments, who correspond to hon. Members opposite in name if in little else, and who are increasingly anxious to avoid the reproach from the more densely populated regions of Europe that they are not prepared to develop their own territories or to allow others to do so. I am


sure, in view of that change of heart on the part of the hon. Member for Seaham and other hon. Members opposite, that the lessons of the war will unite all parties in this House to act in such a way that, as far as lies within our power, we shall prevent there being in the future any justification for such reproaches being levelled at us again; though I am not losing sight of the urgent need for safeguarding the happiness and livelihood of native populations. I fully realise that that has not always been done in the past as it should have been.
In bringing my speech to a conclusion, I should like to be allowed to make one more brief biographical reminiscence, My uncle, to whom I have already referred, was the friend and partner of Cecil Rhodes and was associated with him in many of his projects of Empire. I was brought up on the ideals and achievements of that great era. Those ideals live in the work which Rhodes and others left behind them. His policy has borne fruit, and I have only attempted to-day to modernise it and to adapt it to a world very different from that which he knew. Whatever the obstacles may be, my faith, like his, in the future of the British Commonwealth and in the work which it can do for the peace and stability of the world, knows no bounds.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: I beg to second the Amendment, so ably moved by the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit).
I should like to start by saying how pleasant it is, after considering what many of us think is the extinct volcano of yesterday, to turn to the living organism of the British Commonwealth. The issues raised by my hon. Friend are of profound importance to the British Commonwealth, but one could go much further than that. They are of profound importance to the whole world. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that but for the stand made by the British Commonwealth against the challenge of Germany, to-day Russia would be and the United States would be on the way to being a vassal State of Germany. Therefore, it is of vital importance not only to the unit members of the Commonwealth but to our Allies, that the British Commonwealth and Empire should be strong. That means that, if possible, they should

try to shape a common policy in matters of mutual concern.
Perhaps the House will allow me briefly to discuss what is the present machinery for consultation, so that we may consider what changes are necessary. I will run through it very briefly. The first and perhaps the most important of the methods of consultation is by the meetings of the Imperial Conference. These normally take place every, four years, and of course they are Conferences among members of the British Commonwealth on a footing of complete equality. They have been so for a generation or more. The decisions of the Imperial Conferences are not binding. They are more in the nature of conclusions which are then considered by the individual Governments. Normally, once an Imperial Conference comes to any definite conclusion, it is exceptional for that conclusion not to be ratified by the several Dominions. So the Imperial Conference is the first well recognised method. The second method of consultation is the daily service of information in the form of telegrams and cables that go out from the Dominion Office in a perfect stream day and night. It will interest the House to know that naturally at the time of Munich there was a large number of telegrams sent out to all the Dominions, but the volume of business last year at the Dominion Office was seven times that volume which went out at the time of Munich. That shows how extensive the supply of information is.
Thirdly, there is the right, I should say the practice, of the Prime Minister in this country to communicate direct with the Prime Ministers of the various Dominion Governments and vice versa, and these communications are frequently made. They are of a private and intimate nature, and they are considerable in number. Fourthly, it was the hope of many of us that it would have been possible in this war to reconstitute the Imperial War Cabinet such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) constituted in 1917–18. But it has proved impossible. Our present Prime Minister was in favour of it. Several times in this House and elsewhere he has made statements expressing the hope that it could be done, but it proved impossible for all the Prime Ministers of the Dominions to be present at the same time in London. Nevertheless a good substitute, the next


best thing, has happened, that is, that every Prime Minister of every Dominion has at some time or other been present in London, has joined in the deliberations of our United Kingdom War Cabinet and has greatly enriched the deliberations. Who can say, for example, what is the value of the wisdom, advice and counsel given by General Smuts to our united war effort—or of any of the other Dominion Prime Ministers?

Mr. R. Morgan: The Hon. Gentleman has described somewhat cumbersome methods by which we keep in communication with the different parts of the Empire. Does he not think that direct representation in the Imperial Parliament is a surer and better way?

Sir G. Shakespeare: I will come to that later if I may. The hon. Member is raising the question of federation. I was saying that it was not possible to recreate the Imperial War Cabinet but that we had greatly benefited by the presence in London of successive Dominion Prime Ministers. The reason I mentioned General Smuts was because he is here at present. Nevertheless, towards the end of 1941 it was clear that Australia was not satisfied with the existing arrangements. She demanded a fuller Voice in the control and direction of affairs. This was readily granted. Sir Earle Page at that time came over and sat with the United Kingdom War Cabinet. Ever since then Mr. Bruce, that very experienced statesman and High Commissioner of Australia in London, has sat with our United Kingdom War Cabinet. Early in 1942 our Prime Minister stated that representatives of the four Dominion Governments would be welcome in our United Kingdom War Cabinet. The reply from Canada and South Africa was that they were quite satisfied with existing machinery for consultation, and although New Zealand also took the same line as Australia in demanding a greater voice in the control of affairs, in point of fact she has not sent a representative to our War Cabinet. Fifthly, there is the method of consultation through the High Commissioners' Conference, which meets daily and is presided over by the Secretary of State, and there is a Foreign Office representative there. In my experience this simple machinery is very effective in keeping the Dominions in touch with the day-to-day course of events here and in foreign affairs and the conduct of the war.
This Conference has been called the Junior War Cabinet of the Empire. I had the privilege of attending it for two years. I was immensely impressed by this effective method. It is a Standing Committee. You have the High Commissioners of Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, with the Secretary of State, and issues are raised and discussed day by day. That is the fifth method. I wonder whether the public of this country and in the Dominions realise that there is this standing Conference of the higher representation of the Empire through the daily High Commissioners' Conference. On occasions these Conferences have been held even twice a day.
In peace-time at any rate, because the Committee of Imperial Defence lapses in war-time and other machinery is substituted, the Dominion representatives have the right to attend the discussions of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and they do so. Ever since 1911 this right has been secured and as Members know the Minutes of the Committee of Imperial Defence are sent to all the Dominion Prime Ministers. That, very broadly, is the present machinery of consultation. In my view it is very thorough, it is not stereotyped and it is flexible and elastic. Of course it may be improved; it is always possible to improve it, and it is constantly being improved and amended.

Petty-Officer Alan Herbert: Has Newfoundland any sort of representation at that meeting?

Sir G. Shakespeare: No, the Newfoundland interest would be covered by the presence of the Secretary of State, who is responsible for it. What further changes are needed in the machinery of collaboration and consultation in order to ensure that the British Commonwealth can speak with one voice on matters of vital concern or at least that they shall not speak with conflicting voices? One is thinking of questions like defence, security, economic questions, overseas settlement, communications and so forth. Some have urged the method of federation, that is, one Imperial Parliament and one Imperial Government, which my hon. Friend who intervened a little while ago urges. But that has been dealt with by the hon. Baronet the Member for South East St. Pancras. I absolutely agree with him. I do not believe you could make a


vital organic change of that nature unless there was unanimity within the British Commonwealth and there is no unanimity on this issue. Mr. Curtin on the other hand has suggested an Imperial Standing Advisory Council. Any suggestion coming from a statesman of his calibre must of course be carefully weighed. My own doubt about it is that I wonder whether it adds anything to the existing machinery. If you had a Standing Consultative Council of that nature and if the Prime Ministers of the Dominions could be on it, it might be effective, but of course they cannot be on it because they cannot get away from their own duties in the Dominions. That means that men of lesser standing would compose that Council, and everything would have to be referred back to the respective Prime Ministers and Governments. Are you really doing anything more than appoint a number of pillar boxes, and are you supplying a Council that would do anything better than the existing High Commissioners' Conference?
I have no doubt that all these questions can be resolved. For myself, I would like to make a suggestion which I think will meet the desire of Mr. Curtin and others. My view, broadly speaking, is that I think it is a mistake to try and duplicate machinery or over-elaborate machinery. I am against fixed stereotyped machinery that is not flexible and cannot deal with the changing world, and goodness knows it is going to be a changing world. People imagine drat you have only to have some elaborate machinery, and immediately you can settle all problems. That is sheer nonsense. What we all desire is that there may be within the British Commonwealth the will to pursue a common policy. If you have the will, you do not require elaborate machinery. If you have not the will, no elaborate machinery can possibly shape a common policy.

Mr. Gallacher: How do you get the will?

Sir G. Shakespeare: I think it is certainly present in this country and, I believe, throughout the whole Commonwealth. I hope so. May I in conclusion give a number of suggestions to which I have given a great deal of thought and which I can endorse from my own

experience as Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Dominions Office? I have taken the trouble to discuss these issues with representative opinion from all the Dominions so as to find the largest measure of agreement. In the first place, I suggest that the Imperial Conference, which is the accepted and well recognised method of consultation, should be held much more frequently. It is not sufficient that it should meet every four years. I should like to see this Conference meet annually, and I should like to see the Conference held successively in the capitals of the British Commonwealth, London, Ottawa, Canberra, Wellington and Pretoria. I should like to see attached to the Imperial Conference a permanent body, an Imperial Secretariat.

Mr. Mathers: The hon. Member missed out Dublin.

Sir G. Shakespeare: Perhaps one day even there. I should like to see an Imperial Secretariat formed, a permanent body who could advise the Imperial Conference, could follow up the decisions of the Imperial Conference and could study and consider questions submitted to them by any Dominion Government. One of the weaknesses of the Imperial Conference, I think, has always been that when decisions are taken there is no permanent body to follow up decisions. I should like to see sections dealing with economics, technical questions, trade, industry, finance. I should like to see a strong statistical branch, and I should like to see a section dealing with overseas settlement or, alternatively, if that is not a matter for the Secretariat, I should like to seen an Imperial Board dealing with the question of the redistribution of populations within the British Commonwealth. It is not really enough that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who is Chairman of the Overseas Settlement Board, should by himself, without any advice from the Dominion representatives, settle this question of overseas settlement. When you consider our great resources and the great possibilities of the British Commonwealth, it is not a task for an Under-Secretary to decide by himself. I sincerely hope it will either be the job of an Imperial Secretariat, or else an Imperial Board dealing with these matters should be set up.
I have some experience in these matters, because when I was Chairman of the Children's Overseas Reception Board we arranged for the despatch to the Dominions in war-time of nearly 3,000 children. That scheme was brilliantly successful. When I travelled in Canada I was delighted to find that Ministers, both in the Federal Government and in the Provincial Governments, were anxious for it to be continued, suitably adapted, in peace-time. All the children in Canada will come back to see their homes—naturally, they will, for they will get a free passage back—but thereafter many will want to settle in that Dominion which gave them friendly sanctuary in war-time. I am told that that is true of the children who went to all the Dominions. Here is a chance of getting adult overseas settlement going. I hope it will be possible for the parents of children who are now in the Dominions to get a first priority when assisted emigration starts. When I was administering that scheme all the Dominions approached us to know whether they could give sanctuary to children orphaned by the war. Here, again, is a great opportunity to start, or continue, some of these overseas settlement schemes after the war. We shall be told that it is not to the advantage of ourselves to let any of our dwindling population go, but Britain must consider the good of the British Commonwealth. People of all the Dominions have said to me, "We want more settlers of British stock." There are great openings in South Africa, not under any State scheme, but through infiltration and family settlement.
To sum up, I want an Imperial Conference meeting every year, with a permanent secretariat. I want to see the High Commissioners' daily meetings continuing in peace-time. I agree with my hon. Friend about the advisability of trying the experiment of the Regional Advisory Council, on the lines which General Smuts advocated for Africa.

Mr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend wish to limit these Regional Advisory Councils to members of the British Commonwealth, or would he include foreign Powers as well?

Sir G. Shakespeare: I should start, certainly, with the British Empire. If the dreams of American statesmen and our own Prime Minister come true, and the

United Nations constitute regional councils in some of the important areas like the Pacific, the Atlantic, and Africa, the regional council formed of members of the British Empire will fit naturally into the larger council of the United Nations, just as the British Commonwealth team at Geneva sat there with all the other nations.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I would like to ask my hon. Friend a question, because I know he has wide experience of this matter. Would he suggest that an Imperial Conference should be held before the Peace Conference? The eyes of the world would be upon it, and it is possible that it may be suspected of embarking upon economic agreements. Does he think it wise, in view of the suspicions that might be aroused in our Ally the United States, to hold such a Conference before the end of the war?

Sir G. Shakespeare: In my view, there could not be any suspicion because the members of the family were meeting together. It is surely to the interests of the United States and of Russia that we should be strong and speak with one voice. How can we contribute anything to the wider collaboration after the war, which we should contribute by virtue of our collaboration in this war, as the British Commonwealth, unless we can urge a common policy? I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. I cannot see any ground for suspicion if we are able to summon an Imperial Conference before this war ends. It may be difficult to do it in war-time. Suppose we had an Imperial secretariat now in being that would do all the research, prepare the ground, get all the information for an Imperial Conference, what a help that would be. But there is no such Imperial secretariat. This need reinforces my argument for its creation.
I mentioned the improvement in machinery that I should like to see: An Imperial Conference every year, the High Commissioners meeting daily in peacetime, the experiment of the Regional Advisory Council. There is one other thing that should be done. The British Commonwealth has not only given the world an experiment in freedom, through the system of Parliamentary government that we of our race have so perfected, but British justice is peculiar to the Empire


as a whole. Nothing is quite so characteristically British as our judicial procedure. The method of appeals from the Dominions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is suspect in many Dominions. It is an enormously costly process. I should suggest that, just as our judges go on circuit through the provinces in the United Kingdom, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council might go on circuit through each Dominion, to hear appeals on the spot. Of course, it would join to itself distinguished judges of the Supreme Court of the Dominion in which it happened to be travelling. This procedure would cheapen appeals to a remarkable extent, and would remove some of the suspicion that attaches to the Supreme Empire Judicial Court sitting in Whitehall. I would like to say to my hon. Friend that since I had the privilege of serving in the Dominions Office, that great office, my love of the Empire has been enhanced by my experience of its working, and I yield to none in my tremendous admiration and love of this great experiment in freedom. The British Commonwealth is something that cannot be reproduced or duplicated. It has no precedent in history, and anything we can do to make its contribution in the future more effective, we should do now.

Mr. de Rothschild: I want to express my personal thanks to the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. I am very grateful to them for having brought up the subject of the Dominions in this House, after so many years. The very interesting speech we have heard from the Mover was one which should inspire us to support those in this House who are interested in the Dominions. I should like also to pay tribute to the Seconder, who has filled an important office in connection with the Dominions for many years, and who has given us a most arresting exposition of his views. So long as there are Members in this House who can speak on the Dominions with the same knowledge and feeling as were displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare), there will be no complaint that the Dominions are neglected in this Chamber. Like both hon. Gentlemen, I would like to pay a very humble tribute to the wonderful contribution which has been made in this war by the Dominions.

It is an amazing, a staggering contribution in blood and treasure. I am not going to enumerate everything that these Dominions have done to help us towards victory. It will be written in imperishable letters in the history of the future. It has filled all of us in this country with gratitude, and it has filled our enemies with wonder, with amazement and with fear. Both hon. Gentleman have devoted their attention mainly to post-war questions relating to the Dominions and this country, in relation to each other. The proposals of both hon. Gentlemen deal mainly with the machinery of Empire after the war.
Although I have listened with great respect to what has been said about the meetings which take place under the auspices of the Dominions Secretary, and which have been so ably described to us to-day, I wonder whether closer co-operation is not necessary, not only for the distant future but also for the immediate necessities of the war. I think that short-term methods are essential at present. It is to this kind of machinery that I want to direct my remarks. When the question of the Dominions was discussed in another place and by the Dominions Secretary at the Mansion House, uppermost in the minds of all were the proposals of Mr. Curtin. Mr. Curtin's proposals were mainly directed to the post-war period. He demanded a body composed of representatives of all the Dominions, with a permanent secretariat of experts, to co-ordinate all branches of post-war Empire policy. When the Secretary of State replied to that, he referred to the words of the Prime Minister in this House last September. The Prime Minister then said, in his usual magnificent phraseology, that such spacious issues would be appropriate for an Imperial Conference or for a meeting of Dominion Prime Ministers. I hope, indeed, that such a Conference will take place as soon as possible. We know what a useful purpose is served on all occasions by these bodies when they meet together and how they help to bring out all that is required. The machinery of which I am thinking at the present time is on a much less grandiose scale, and therefore it need not wait for these grandiose preliminaries.
In the course of his speech in another place the Secretary of State sketched out the existing consultative machinery, and


it has been again explained to us to-day by one who is expert in the working of it. He argued at that time, as did the hon. Gentleman, that it was sufficient for the present needs. Firstly, we have been told there is communication between the Dominions Office here and the Departments of External Affairs in the Dominions; secondly, communication between Dominion Governments and Dominion Prime Ministers, personally and through the High Commissioners, and lastly there is the very important daily meeting between the Dominions Secretary and the High Commissioners themselves.
With regard to the picture that has been painted, I cannot say that I am altogether convinced that we possess a sufficiently co-ordinated machine for integrating the work of the Commonwealth and the opinions of the Dominions and also for ensuring that every Dominion has the opportunity of expressing its opinion with due weight on the many important decisions which to-day have to be taken frequently in the name of the Empire as a whole. The Dominions Secretary himself in his speech admitted that there were some inadequacies in the system. He said that in war-time immediate decisions must sometimes be taken by the Government which leave no time for adequate consultation with the Dominions. In war-time, and also in strained conditions during peace, international relations cause decisions to be taken very quickly and very suddenly, and there is not always time to consult the Dominions in regard to matters in which they are concerned.
Such was the view of the Dominions Secretary himself, and such a situation might very well lead to serious misunderstandings, and nothing would be more regrettable than that. That such things can happen has been exemplified in the past. We need not cast back our memory very far. Most hon. Members will remember what happened at the end of the last war. When the Turkish Government recognised the Treaty by which this country contemplated the protection of Constantinople and of the neutral area which was set up by the Treaty, what happened? The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), sent queries to the various Dominions asking them whether they would be ready to send Forces should this become necessary.

But without waiting for their replies he simultaneously announced his action in the Press and the steps he had taken. What was the result? Mr. MacKenzie King, who was then, as he is to-day, Prime Minister of Canada, was not in Ottawa when the communication arrived, and the first information he obtained was from the Press. General Smuts was away in the interior and did not hear anything until the matter had become a dead issue. Although Australia and New Zealand indicated that they were prepared to co-operate and agreed, yet Mr. Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, then censured the Government here very freely for having given the release to the Press. Feeling ran very high at that time in the Dominions about the absence of consultation and the manner in which the Government of this country had gone over the heads of the Dominion Governments in the Press announcements. If there had been better facilities at that time for communication and consultation, surely this would not have happened.
A great many years have elapsed since then and a good deal has taken place and matters have been smoothed over, but I feel they are still acute. I would remind the House that an occasion occurred only a short time ago. In the course of some remarks on the Moscow Conference made in Australia Mr. Evatt, the Minister for External Affairs, showed he was entirely and fully in agreement with the spirit of the Moscow Conference and applauded what took place there but he added a caution. He said that the members of the British Commonwealth had the right to expect that the final execution of the Moscow agreements would not be undertaken without prior reference to the Dominions. These words are not without their significance. Are we to conclude from them that there was no consultation with the Dominions before the Moscow Conference and that the Foreign Secretary was speaking for this country alone, with the voice of this Island behind him only, while the representatives of United States and Soviet Russia were speaking for the vast extent of their own territories and their great populations, or can we conclude that the Foreign Secretary was speaking with the voice of the Empire behind him and of the countries which, comprise it? The Dominions, on questions affecting the Empire, should speak


with one voice, and indeed they can do so. In these great international Conferences to which the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary goes representing this country, surely he should be able to speak for all the Dominions as well as for the Dominions we represent in this House. The different countries in the Empire were founded on the same ideals, and have the same aim in common. Surely machinery can be devised so that they may be able to make their own decisions, united by the golden thread of the Crown and by their love of liberty and by the fact that they were nurtured in Parliamentary ideas and look forward to the same peace-time ideal for their people. Some machinery should be built up which would enable them to speak on these occasions with one voice. If they are not only to think but are also to be enabled to act in the fullest possible accord, there must be no delay in setting up this machinery, which should make such co-ordination really possible in all important world matters.
The methods of consultation which were described by the Dominions Secretary go no further than those which exist between this country and other foreign nations. When the Dominions Secretary described the meeting of himself with the High Commissioners he said that these meetings bad been started by the right hon. Gentleman who had been at the Foreign Office and who was there again to-day and who, during that period, occupied the post of Dominions Secretary. But to my mind these meetings are still comparable with the meetings which take place between the Foreign Secretary and the Ambassadors of Foreign Powers. It is true that the High Commissioners meet every day, but let us remember that the arrangements for consultation with foreign countries have been found to be inadequate in the case of our Allies. They do not serve the war-time needs of the United Nations, and in the closer integration of policy a new machinery has been found necessary between the Allied Powers, and two bodies have therefore been set up—the European Advisory Council and the Advisory Council for Italy. The object of these Councils is to secure complete unity of action and joint responsibility in all matters which involve the interests of the Powers concerned. I wonder in all

humility whether another body such as this is not necessary in order to co-ordinate and serve the interests of the Empire at the present time dealing with the short-term period of integrating the war effort of the Empire and making adequate preparation for the peace; a body, at a lower level than anything comparable to the Imperial Conference, a body composed of experts, and possibly a body on the lines of the secretariat of which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich was speaking. No doubt if the Dominions were approached by the Dominions Secretary and they agreed to a proposal of this sort they would be able to send men of importance and of knowledge to this commission or whatever it might be called. Such a body would be in constant session in London, like the European Advisory Council, and it would be competent to give authoritative advice and information both to this Government and to the various Governments in the Dominions. Each of its members would be able to put the point of view of his own Dominion on every matter in which it was concerned, whether it was a matter of inter-Commonwealth relations or of the relations of the Commonwealth with other nations. Sitting in the neighbourhood of Whitehall, it would have at hand all the information it would require. It would not be in the limelight like the great Imperial Conference and could in no way take the place of an Imperial Conference or a Conference of Prime Ministers. It would only be concerned with the daily difficulties which arise and on which daily consultation and advice are necessary in order to keep the relations of the Empire with Foreign Powers in good running order.
But it would have this advantage, and that is the reason I am trying to put it forward. It would represent the point of view of the Empire as a whole and not the views of the different High Commissioners, and it might give co-ordinated and decisive advice to the Government of this country. Whether a body of this kind should be continued after the war is a question entirely outside my range at the present time. I am considering it purely as a war measure, on the same plane as the European Commission on which the Allies are now sitting.
The war may come to a sudden end; we all hope it will. No doubt a protracted


period of peace negotiations will follow. A body like this could lay the foundations for the great decisions which will have to be made by the joint body of the Dominions when that time arrives. There will be such questions as defence, migration and economic expansion, and a body such as this could well prepare the ground. I suggest that if this body is set up it would be of great use in further cementing the different parts of the Empire. After the war there will be three main blocks of population wielding preponderant powers—the United States, Russia and the British Commonwealth. All these have been built up on the basis of federation, and I am using the word "federation" in the widest, and not in a legal, sense. Federation may be of different people who are welded together by economic necessity, geographical conditions or by means of a strong centralised Government, but I suggest that federation may be just as firm although the links are far less visible. The British Dominions are held together by the gossamer thread of loyalty and allegiance, and it is our pride that these bonds are as strong as the more apparently constitutional bonds which unite a federation.
These three blocks are now fighting side by side. They have decided to remain united for the common purpose which is uniting them to-day. Extensive and patient work will be necessary to ensure smooth co-operation after the war. The widely divergent economic outlooks of the United States and Russia will, no doubt, present grave difficulties, and it may well be that the Commonwealth should be able to act as a link. In order to do that, it must speak with a united voice. I feel that preparations should now be made by such a body as I have been advocating. It would clear the ground for an agreed plan of action that the Commonwealth could make towards the future welfare of the world. It would be able to back its plan with the strength and good will of every one of its members, and it would play an incalculable part in showing the way towards a future of justice, freedom, liberty and prosperity.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): This is the first time since the outbreak of hostilities that the future of the British Commonwealth has been discussed in this House. I do not think there is anything very surprising about this fact,

for during the last four years the whole energies of the Commonwealth have been devoted to the prosecution of the war. In the darkest days the British people showed their determination to stand or fall together and this unity of purpose brought them through one of the most critical periods in their history. In great crises established relationships are tested. It is not the time to examine the various ties which bind us together. Looking back, however, over the rough road we have travelled, it can be truly said that these relationships have been subjected to the harshest tests and are stronger today than they have ever been in the past. Now that the tide has turned this Debate will be warmly welcomed both here and overseas. We shall be able to discuss our problems in the light of the experience we have gained. But before discussing these problems I should like to take the opportunity, as my hon. Friends have done, of saying something about the remarkable contribution which the Dominions have made to the war. It has been greater this time than in the last war, because in the intervening years the resources of the Dominions have grown. It is, of course, impossible to deal with such a wide question in any detail. To do so it would be necessary to give a review of the whole course of the war. The efforts of the Dominions have been on a vast scale and have been so interwoven that they cannot be dealt with in a short space of time. But they have been given in full measure; they have played their full part in every theatre of war and in every element, it does not matter to what part of the world we turn, we shall find that the Dominion Forces have been in the forefront of the battle, whether on the sea, in the air or in the battles which swayed to and fro between the Nile Valley and El Agheila to the climax at El Alamein. During the whole of the North African and Mediterranean campaigns and in the Pacific, everywhere there was fighting to be done, the Dominions have added new laurels to the long and honourable records of the past.
But it is not only on the field of battle that they have given of their best. Both in the industrial and financial fields the Dominions contribution has been remarkable. They have supplied the sinews of war and a large proportion of the


foodstuffs on which we have had to depend in this island. I would especially like to refer to one contribution which is a milestone in the history of the Commonwealth. The financial contribution which has been made by Canada is on such a vast scale that it relieves the British taxpayer of very nearly £1,00,000 a day. All these contributions, of course, cannot be judged by the same standard. Every Dominion has its own internal problems and difficulties, but such difficulties only make the part which each has played all the more remarkable.
Those not intimately acquainted with British institutions may be excused if they do not realise the nature of an experiment which has no political precedent and is based on no political model. The truth is that the British Commonwealth is a growing organism and, like all growing bodies, it is subject to constant change. The fact that five independent units, having taken considerable pains to define their independent status under the Crown, should have entered the greatest war in history together, without hesitation and of their own free will, shows an overriding unity.
During the 25 years between the two wars the Dominions laid particular stress on their independent status. They felt that a new relationship should be established between themselves and the rest of the world. This was not on account of any desire to break away; all history shows that this was not so. There were two particular political influences before the war—the idea of the freedom of small nationalities and the conception of a comprehensive international organization which affected thought among all the British people. The status of the Dominions, both as members of the Commonwealth and also as members of the League of Nations, played a part in moulding opinion. It is improbable that these trends of thought will continue in exactly the same form in future. Smaller nations will, in all probability, not wish to return to their identical pre-war status. The shape of the future, so far as we can see it, appears to be moving towards larger groups or blocks of nations, both great and small. In this respect the British Empire and Commonwealth has been ahead of the world and has represented a great stabilising influence. The

test which has been applied to the present system has been a severe one, but it has stood the strain. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare) described in some detail the elaborate machinery which has been built up over a period of years. I would also like to say something about this machinery, for it is bound to be the basis of any further advance. I should not give the House a complete picture unless I referred to it. My hon. Friend pointed out that the usual method of communication is between Government and Government and, on the higher level, between Prime Minister and Prime Minister. There seems to be some misconception, especially on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) with regard to the meetings of the High Commissioners in London. These meetings are informal and take place daily. The Secretary of State, my Noble Friend, presides, and a representative of the Foreign Office is present, with the Permanent Secretary and myself.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does the Trade Commissioner for Newfoundland attend them?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: They are meetings of the High Commissioners. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely complained that the Dominions had not been informed about the preliminary conversations or the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Moscow Conference.

Mr. de Rothschild: I did not complain. I asked a question in view of what has been said in Australia.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I will now give the answer. There was the closest consultation, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs attended one of the usual meetings of the High Commissioners one day and the Assistant Under Secretary to the Foreign Office on another day and laid before the High Commissioners the whole mind of the Government with regard to the policy that they proposed to adopt at Moscow, and of course the various Dominion Governments were kept in contact through the usual channels.

Mr. Baxter: Since the Trade Commissioner for Newfoundland does not attend the Conferences of the High Commissioners, does he attend the Colonial Office?


Does he go anywhere? Does anyone speak to him at all?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: The Trade Commissonner for Newfoundland is in close touch with the Dominions Office, and the Dominions Office look after the interests of Newfoundland.

Mr. Maxton: Is he not an employee of the Dominions Office?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I will deal with the whole question later.

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Maxton rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): If the Minister does not give way, the hon. Member can hardly put his question.

Dr. Russell Thomas: On a point of Order. I am not quite clear whether the Minister is replying to the Debate, or is it going to continue after he sits down? Are we have to have anyone else speaking for the Government?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think there is a point of Order there, but the Debate continues after the Minister sits down.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I shall deal with the question of Newfoundland in due course and shall be prepared to answer any questions put to me. At present, I am dealing with another point, the machinery of communication between this country and the various Dominions. Besides the High Commissioners in London there are the United Kingdom High Commissioners in the Dominions, and there is constant contact between them and the various Ministries of External Affairs. I feel that we owe a particular debt of gratitude for the smooth working of our relations not only to our High Commissioners in the Dominions but also to their staffs. They are drawn in the main from the Dominions Office, and they are beginning to form what may be described as the beginnings of a Dominions service. My hon. Friend has described the appointment of Mr. Bruce to the War Cabinet as the accredited representative of the Commonwealth Governments, but there are one or two other channels of communication, which are important ones. There are the visits of Ministers. Prime Ministers have been mentioned, but there are other Ministers who have visited this

country, and, in the reverse direction, the Prime Minister has visited Canada two or three times since the war and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have also paid visits to Ottawa. The war-time appointments of three of the United Kingdom High Commissioners in the Dominions have also been given to ex-Cabinet Ministers in this country. As to the liaison at lower levels, technical conferences constantly take place, missions move about the Empire, and there are exchanges of visits among officials.
The most important of all is the Imperial Conference. The Government have endeavoured, not to call an Imperial Conference—that would not be possible in war-time conditions—but to arrange a meeting of Prime Ministers. It has not yet been possible to arrange such a meeting, but it is very much hoped that it will be possible to do so in the not too far distant future. The fact that the present system has stood the strain is no argument for maintaining it in its present form unaltered. The Commonwealth is not static. Change and development are essential to its health and vigour. The wider the discussion the better. The time is ripe for an examination of the methods of consultation. Mr. Curtin has made a most important proposal, and we warmly welcome his initiative, but the decision to make a change must be a decision not only of this country but of all the Dominions. A Dominion point of view is often spoken of, as if there was a consensus of opinion in all the Dominions different from ours. There is no such Dominion point of view. Every Dominion, of course, has a point of view of its own, but it may, and often does, differ from that of other Dominions. Any change, therefore, would have to be decided upon by an Imperial Conference or by a meeting of Prime Ministers.
The question of Commonwealth relationships has recently been discussed in a correspondence started by Mr. Lionel Curtis in "The Times" newspaper. Mr. Curtis is a great authority on Empire affairs, and his selfless devotion to the cause of Imperial unity commands great respect both here and overseas. He advocates the setting-up of a Federal Parliament and Government for the whole Empire in order to control foreign policy and defence. He believes that, if a


Federal Parliament and Government for the whole of the self-governing parts of the Empire had been in existence before the war, we should have adopted a different foreign policy and should have rearmed more quickly and on a much greater scale. I do not think there is any substantial foundation for such a belief. Between the wars there was a co-ordinated foreign policy. It received the general assent of this country and the Dominions. All were anxious to make the machinery of the League work, and, although on matters of detail there were differences, on major issues there was agreement. When it was decided to impose sanctions, all the Dominions were in favour of the policy and took steps to give effect to the decision. The foreign policy of pre-war Governments may therefore justly be said to have been concurred in by the rest of the Commonwealth. No one has ever suggested before that it was determined upon because this country could not obtain effective help and support from the Commonwealth. Throughout the whole difficult period the strategic policy of the Government was co-ordinated, and the Dominions willingly played their part. Whatever the causes may have been which meant failure on our part to avert the war, they were not due to any failure to co-ordinate the policy of the Empire.
It is clear, I think, that a Federal Parliament would not, by itself, provide a solution nor would it, for reasons which I need not enter into now, receive the concurrence of the Dominions. The way towards closer co-operation lies along other lines. The best method would be regular meetings of Prime Ministers. They would be able to establish identity of purpose. But it is not easy for Prime Ministers to leave their own countries. On the other hand, it should not be so difficult to arrange meetings of Ministers of External Affairs. They might meet possibly once a year before meetings of the new international organisation which it is contemplated will be set up after the war. Such regular meetings would be an important step towards strengthening the machinery of consultation. At such meetings not only would the general lines of foreign policy be laid down but also strategic plans and the military measures necessary to put them into effect, but no

machinery will ever be effective unless there is the will to make it so. As a distinguished American writer recently said:
Blueprints, covenants, contracts, charters and declarations do not create living associations. They merely formulate, regulate, ratify, develop and guide the actions of men or groups of men who already have the will to associate themselves.
I will return to this point later; it is the essence of the matter.
I will now turn from the broad question of Empire relationships to the particular problem of Newfoundland. The present position, for reasons which are well known, is altogether anomalous. The suspension of Parliamentary government and the fact that 250,000 British subjects sprung from these Islands are living without representative institutions will be deplored by every Member of the House, to whatever party he belongs. It is for this reason that the future of the island has been very much in our minds. Soon after the Lord President of the Council became Secretary of State for the Dominions he paid a visit to Newfoundland. The opportunity of seeing local conditions and meeting people representing every phase of the life of the island was of great value. Last summer he decided to ask the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Sir. D. Gunston), and the senior Member for the University of Oxford (Petty Officer Herbert) to go out to Newfoundland on a good-will mission. I will not anticipate the speeches of my hon. Friends, but I would like to pay a tribute to the care with which they studied conditions and the way in which they carried out their long and strenuous tour. The visit was greatly appreciated. The House will have the benefit of their experience and knowledge, and my Noble Friend will be greatly helped by the stimulating suggestions which they made. Many of the suggestions deal with administrative matters and the development of the country's industries and public services. These matters are all under consideration and examination. I will not go into them to-day, but I will confine myself to the constitutional issue which the Government have recently had under review.
There has been a considerable volume of criticism, both in this House and outside, which takes the form of representing that His Majesty's Government in


the United Kingdom deprived Newfoundland of long-established Parliamentary institutions by arbitrary action, and it gives a picture of the island being kept in subjection under a system imposed by a tyrannical home Government against the will of the people. There can be no greater travesty of the facts. At the close of the last war the island was enjoying greater prosperity than it had ever experienced in the past, and, in considering the future, we should remember that these conditions proved to be transitory. In the 12 years from 1920 onwards, conditions deteriorated. During this period the Budget was never balanced, and each year the Newfoundland Government raised a fresh loan, partly to meet the current deficit and partly to finance fresh schemes of capital expenditure. By 1931, when the world economic depression was at its height, the public debt had been doubled, its credit was exhausted, it had no reserves on which to fall back, and conditions had become desperate.
In these circumstances, and faced with such a critical position, the Newfoundland Government appealed to the United Kingdom Government for assistance, and a Royal Commission was set up under Lord Amulree. I would remind the House of the main recommendations of that Report. The Commission reported that the troubles of the island were not merely passing ones, but were of long standing and deep-seated and that its requirements were twofold, financial and political. The island was in imminent danger of financial collapse and that poverty and distress were widespread, and unemployment was rife. The condition of the people was pitiful. They said that financial aid would not of itself cure the island's troubles. They felt that the small Newfoundland community could not by itself deal successfully with the unprecedented difficulties which had overtaken the country. They recommended, unanimously, the temporary suspension of the Constitution till such time as the island might become self-supporting again, and the establishment of a Government consisting of six members, three drawn from the United Kingdom and three from Newfoundland. They also proposed that the Governor-in-Commission should be responsible to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and that the United Kingdom should be responsible for the finances of the island.
It is important to remember that both Houses of the Newfoundland Parliament, after a full Debate, unanimously passed a joint Address to His Majesty the King asking him to give effect to the recommendations of the Report.
In these circumstances the Newfoundland Bill, of 1933, was introduced into Parliament. The United Kingdom Government felt that in view of the recommendations of the Commission they had no alternative but to respond to the appeal of the Newfoundland Government.
I should like to make one further point. Among the recommendations of the Royal Commission reproduced in the Address of the Newfoundland Legislature and in the Schedule to the Newfoundland Act is the following:
It would be understood that as soon as the island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting responsible government, on the request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored.
Two conditions, therefore, had to be satisfied. In the first place, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Parliament had to be satisfied that the island was self-supporting; and, in the second place, there must be a request from the people of Newfoundland. In deciding whether the island is self-supporting, the Government must consider the abnormal conditions prevailing at the present time. Leaving this aside, however, and taking the budgetary figures alone, it can be claimed that the island has paid its way for the last three years. On this basis it might be claimed that the first condition of the Act is satisfied. With regard to the second condition—the request from the people of Newfoundland—it cannot be said that there is yet any evidence of a general wish for the restoration of self-government. The people are not satisfied that the abnormal conditions and the present prosperity will continue. It is clear that if responsible government is to be restored, there must be some assurance of a measure of economic stability. There is certainly no desire for any far-reaching change until after the war, and until the Newfoundland public have had an opportunity of assessing their prospects in the post-war world.

Earl Winterton: May I ask a question? Not so very long ago I was in Newfoundland and travelled round to public meetings with the Commission. The point was raised at those meetings whether steps


could not be taken, as this House is responsible for the condition of Newfound, for its Members, apart from myself, to visit the island. Will my hon. Friend consider whether encouragement could be given to Members of this House to visit Newfoundland after the war to ascertain public opinion?

Mr. Emus-Evans: We will certainly bear that suggestion in mind, but events may, of course, move fairly quickly as the House will see from what I have to say.

Mr. Baxter: I would like to support what my Noble Friend says, which is an admirable idea, but since the Newfoundland people have no power and no focus point to express their desire, and since they are a scattered people, how are they ever to convey to His Majesty's Government their desire for self-government?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: My hon. Friend is very impatient. If he will wait a little, he will hear a little more. There is, however, a widespread feeling that the return by even one single step to full responsible government would be a great mistake. Opinion is, however, much divided as to what form of self-government, or what form of government, would best suit the island in future. I think my hon. Friends the members of the Mission would agree with this view of the state of public opinion. After reviewing the position, the Government have decided that their policy should be based on the following main points:
The arrangements made in 1933 included a pledge by His Majesty's Government that as soon as the Island's difficulties had been overcome and the country was again self-supporting, responsible government, on request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored. Our whole policy is governed by this undertaking.
Owing, however, to the existing abnormal conditions caused by the war which make it impossible for the Newfoundland people as a whole to come to a considered conclusion as to the Island's future prospects, there should be no change in the present form of Government while the war lasts.
As soon as practicable after the end of the war, that is, the war in Europe, machinery must be provided for enabling

the Newfoundland people to examine the future of the Island and to express their considered views as to the form of Government they desire, having regard to the financial and economic conditions prevailing at the time. In the meantime the Secretary of State will take soundings in order to ascertain what kind of machinery would be acceptable to the Newfoundland people.
If the general wish of the people should be for a return to full responsible government we for our part shall be very ready, if the Island is then self-supporting, to facilitate such a change.
If, however, the general wish should be either for the continuance of the present form of Government or for some change of system which would fall short of full responsible government, we shall be prepared to examine such proposals sympathetically and consider within what limits the continued acceptance of responsibility by the United Kingdom could be recommended to Parliament.
In the meantime a vigorous attempt should be made to push on with the development of local government, on which the members of the Mission have made some interesting recommendations, as well as with general reconstruction plans. Every effort should be made to encourage the development of local government institutions, which would afford a base for an effective central Government.
In accordance with this statement of policy, my Noble Friend will take steps to ascertain what machinery would be most acceptable to Newfoundland public opinion and to devise means to enable it to be put into effect at an appropriate moment. Possible methods might include, for example, the setting-up of some form of National Convention, but this is for further consideration in the light of views expressed in Newfoundland. I would like to add that there is no desire on the part of the Government to impose any particular solution. The Government will be guided by the freely expressed views of the people. It is for Newfoundland to make the choice, and the Government, with the assent of Parliament, will be very ready to give effect to their wishes. Although it is not my intention to say very much about the financial, economic and social conditions of the island, they of course have an important bearing upon the constitutional issue.

Mr. Riley: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of local government, may I ask whether the Commissioners are doing anything or making any suggestions with regard to the organisation of local government in any shape or form? Is any scheme being drawn up or are any proposals being made?

Mr. Emrys Evans: All these questions, as I said earlier, are the subject of active examination at the present moment. They are being very carefully considered.

Mr. Creech Jones: With regard to the proposals which the Government have just announced, is it intended that until the end of the war there shall be no modification of the existing form of Commissioner Government? Will the structure remain just as it is to-day?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Yes, Sir, that is so. That is implied in the statement of the policy of the Government. There are one or two aspects of the economic and social conditions in the island which have a bearing on the constitutional issue. The social services, for example, have been greatly increased since the establishment of the Commission of Government, and they are a charge which will have to be taken into consideration when the future financial structure of Newfoundland is under consideration.

Earl Winterton: Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the social services because they are of great interest and importance?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I am afraid I cannot go into details on that question at the present moment. I have various other things to discuss and I understand that there will be a later opportunity of dealing with this matter. There has also been under consideration—in fact, the plans are very far advanced—a scheme for the reorganisation of the fisheries of the island. I cannot go into the details of the scheme now and I will only say about it that, if it is as successful as we hope it will be, it might very well make a great difference to the future prosperity of Newfoundland. The Commissioner of Natural Resources is pushing forward as rapidly as he can various schemes of reconstruction, but he is handicapped, as we are in this country, by a lack of expert staff. I cannot close what I have to say without paying a tribute to the work of

the Commission of Government. Their task has been a very difficult one. As I have said, a government without a legislative assembly is an anomaly in a British community, but the Commission of Government, unsustained by the advice and support of Parliament, has successfully brought the island through the difficult years since the suspension of the Constitution.
I will now leave the question of Newfoundland and say something of a problem which affects the whole Commonwealth and which is a matter of widespread interest—the question of migration. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment mentioned this important subject. The white population of the British Commonwealth is approximately 71,000,000, of which 24,000,000 live in the Dominions. These figures show that the population of the Dominions is increasing relatively to that of this country. The extent of their territories and resources show also that there is room for very wide expansion. The Dominions are giving consideration to this important matter.

Mr. Riley: Does the 71,000,000 include the coloured population in South Africa?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I said white population. This is really a question which concerns the white population of the Empire. In particular, Australia has recently taken active steps to examine the problem. I do not anticipate that any Dominion will be able to initiate a migration policy on a large scale until it has been possible for it to form some idea of the conditions in the post-war world.
It is clear, however, that in future the Dominions will require a different kind of settler to those who have gone out in the past. They are anxious to develop their secondary industries and they will want the skilled industrial worker. There will not at the present time be room for the agricultural emigrant whom we have usually associated with emigration in the past. My noble Friend said last week at the Guildhall that it was clearly unhealthy that one part of the Empire should be over-populated and over-industrialised and that other parts should be under-populated and under-industrialised. Clearly anything which tends to make other parts of the Commonwealth richer and stronger will increase the power of


the whole, but this is a very complex question. The downward trend of population in the United Kingdom is naturally causing considerable anxiety. It might, indeed, be argued that the United Kingdom will have no surplus population for emigration overseas. On balance, however, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom consider that emigration should be encouraged. It is even possible that the very fact that opportunities are opening out in the Dominions might have its effect in averting a decrease of the population in this country. This matter, however, is one for the Dominions as much as it is for the United Kingdom. Emigration can only take place if it is their settled policy that it should do so. The Government are already in close touch with the Dominions on this question.
There are one or two aspects of the structure of the Commonwealth on which I should like to say something before I end. The British peoples scattered all over the world are more sensitive to changes in the international political temperature than other countries, however great, which are confined to one geographical area. They are governed by the same Parliamentary institutions. The Legislature controls the Executive and is able to keep the Government in close touch with the people. Everywhere the redress of grievances forms an important part in the work of Parliament. There is a certain rhythm which runs through the whole Commonwealth and enables it to understand quickly the nature of events which are likely to affect it. These two factors have enabled the Commonwealth to act swiftly in times of crisis. The German attack on Poland brought the Dominions into the war, immediately, although Poland is thousands of miles from the nearest Dominion. They understood the true significance of the struggle and how in all probability it would spread. How right they were, for it spread to the Pacific and Indian Oceans and affected all the Dominions in a greater or less degree. Thus it came about that alone among the Powers now fighting the British peoples declared war against the aggressor without waiting to be attacked and sustained the struggle alone during a most critical year.
These great events are now part of the history of the British Commonwealth and

Empire. The lesson to be drawn from the experience of these years is, that the Commonwealth, as long as it stands together, will remain a powerful force in the world. If it breaks up its component parts will be unimportant States scattered over the face of the earth. If we are to remain together we must have a common foreign policy and a common strategic plan. That is not all, however. If in future we were to be concerned merely with our own affairs, we might well sink into insignificance even if the structure of the Commonwealth remained. Our influence and authority have been great in the past and are great to-day because the Commonwealth stands for certain ideals and values which we have shown that we are determined to maintain. These ideals and values cannot be maintained unless we are prepared to act in close co-operation with others. An isolationist policy would lead us once more to the lonely and perilous position in which we found ourselves in 1940. We cannot afford to look inwards. We must always look outwards to distant horizons. It may well be that the British group of nations will be the pattern and the guide of new and even wider combinations in the years to come.

Mr. Ammon: I rise to put a question arising out of the statement which has just been made about Newfoundland. I am sure that the House will permit me first to compliment the hon. Gentleman on the first statement that he has made since he succeeded to his new office. I congratulate him on both the substance and the delivery of it. It is not anticipated, I presume, that the Debate on Newfoundland will be taken to-day, because the Debate that has been initiated in no way gave the impression that such was likely to occur. There are a number of Members who wish to speak on the Amendment, and I would like to ask whether we can be given an assurance that before the Christmas Recess a day will be given to discuss Newfoundland. The statement which the hon. Gentleman has given will be read with interest in Newfoundland, and it raises a number of questions that need to be answered, questions that were naturally inquired into by the members of the recent mission. It would not be polite to the members of the mission to have this subject spatchcocked into the middle of another Debate, and it would be rather resented by Newfoundland


if a Debate on their problems, which are of a serious nature and which have been the subject of a special mission, were to be relegated to the fag end of a Debate on an entirely different subject. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can give an undertaking that on, say, the Motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess, or some other appropriate occasion, a day will be given to discuss Newfoundland.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: I should like to reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), and I would assure the Under-Secretary that I do not do it with any personal feeling, but the recent visit to Newfoundland created an enormous amount of interest, and I think the psychological effect of not giving a day to the discussion of her affairs would be disastrous. I welcome the statement which has been made by the Under-Secretary and think it goes a long way to meet some of our wishes, but at any rate we should like time to consider it, and I would reinforce the argument that it is unfair to the hon. Baronet and other Members who have spoken in the general Debate to bring in Newfoundland now. We should spoil two Debates—spoil the Debate on the Empire and spoil the Debate on Newfoundland, hurt Newfoundland and do no good to the cause we all want to help.

Squadron-Leader Donner: I should like to associate myself with the plea which has been made. It is a fact that between the two wars the Empire has possessed no detailed and accepted foreign policy.

Mr. Ammon: On a point of Order. Before the Debate is continued may I ask whether we are to have an answer from the Minister?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: That is a matter which will have to be approached through the usual channels. I could not give an assurance at the moment, but naturally I shall bring it to the attention of my Noble Friend.

Mr. Baxter: This puts us in a most embarrassing position. Am I out of Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member chooses to raise it as a point of Order, he can get away with it.

Mr. Baxter: On a point of Order. The Minister has put us in a very embarrassing position. It is true that we can now, if we happen to catch your eye, speak on Newfoundland, but we are told that the usual channels will go into the question some time later to-day, and if they say "No," and there is nothing to stop them, then Newfoundland, having been smothered yesterday by Mosley, and brought in to-day as affording the last possible opportunity, will disappear from this House. What can we do about it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the question has now been put pretty definitely by two or three Members and that in due course a senior Member of the Government will arrive and will be able to answer the point of Order. Meanwhile, I think the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner) had better continue his speech.

Squadron-Leader Donner: I was saying that between the two wars the Empire possessed no accepted or detailed common foreign policy, no similar common defence policy and no complete common policy at all as regards trade and economics with the notable exception of the Ottawa Agreements. It is constantly said that the welfare of the world will primarily depend upon the co-operation of the major Powers of the United Nations. I believe it is fundamental to the success of any such co-operation that the British Empire should be in a position to co-operate as a single cohesive unit. Many who share the longing for international co-operation are apt to assume that as things now are the British Empire is in a position to play its part with other Powers and to discharge its present and future imperial responsibilities and its present and future international commitments. In point of fact, the two sets of obligations are intermixed and interdependent. The Empire can only discharge both obligations if it can arrive at a common mind on both. That is why there is an increasing number of thoughtful people throughout the Empire who are reaching the conclusion that not only in the interests of the Empire itself but in the interests of the whole world more effective and more continuous inter-Imperial consultation and co-operation must be established, and that reliance must be placed upon this new machinery rather than upon disappointingly infrequent Imperial Conferences.
This is a movement of thought which will grow and continue to grow and a movement of thought which will not be propitiated by smooth assurances that the present machinery for daily information is adequate, even if it is complicated. On the contrary, had that machinery been equal to its task the Prime Minister of Australia would not last August have advocated the establishment of a permanent consultative Empire council. The House will recall that that speech, gravely critical of the present machinery of inter-Imperial consultation and co-operation, received the support of Mr. Fraser, the Prime Minister of New Zealand. If hon. Members desire any further evidence which sheds a glaring light upon the inadequacy of present arrangements it is furnished by the fact that in 1941, when Mr. Menzies was Prime Minister of Australia, and after the collapse of Singapore, which placed Australia in a not dissimilar position vis-à-vis Japan to that of this country after Dunkirk vis-à-vis Germany, had to come to the United Kingdom in order to present Australia's case to the United Kingdom War Cabinet. Events after his return to Australia and public opinion reflected in the Australian Press were of such a nature that a Minister, Sir Earle Page, was appointed to reside in London in order to ensure that Australian interests were presented to the War Cabinet in the most forceful way. The Australian Government, to do it justice, made no pretence about its anxieties. It believed that the present machinery for expressing its views and for consultation was inadequate and it emphasised its view by a ministerial appointment, while Field-Marshal Smuts found it necessary to visit this country no fewer than three times during the course of this war.
I do hope I shall not be misunderstood in this matter. I welcome, and I believe the whole House welcomes, the visits of these distinguished Dominion statesmen to this country and we look forward to welcoming them again in the future, but let us have no illusions. What was the reason for these visits? Imperfect machinery of inter-Imperial consultation was largely responsible for these visits. If there is one cause for uneasiness about these invaluable war-time visits of Prime Ministers to this country it lies in the hard fact that imperfect machinery of

inter-Imperial consultation and co-operation was largely responsible for them.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I think I ought to correct the hon. and gallant Member. The Ministers were invited to this country. It was not because they had any feeling that the machinery was unsatisfactory.

Squadron-Leader Donner: The Australian Government made their position in 1941 very plain indeed. I can assure my hon. Friend that it is perfectly accurate to say what I did say, that it was the imperfect machinery which was largely responsible for his visit to this country in 1941.

Mr. Emrys-Evans: Quite wrong.

Squadron-Leader Donner: The Australian Government made no secret of their anxieties. We have been assured by the Government that they are anxious to secure a conference of Prime Ministers at the earliest possible date, but for a variety of reasons it has so far proved impracticable to bring it about. That constitutes no argument for taking no action meanwhile. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions, in a remarkable speech at the Guildhall on 23rd November, went so far as to say that it was not desirable to wait until the end of the war. While it is certainly possible to postpone deliberation of Mr. Curtin's suggestion until the meeting of Prime Ministers, it is also possible to establish a permanent secretariat for an Imperial Conference now.
Few, I think, will argue that the problems which will face the Empire after the war will be less important than the problems of the war itself. Indeed, the Secretary of State for the Dominions has made this candid admission. His Majesty's Government, he said:
do not regard the present machinery as perfect or necessarily the best that could be devised to meet peace-time conditions.
That is a definite observation, but it immediately raises the question whether the best use is being made of the existing machinery of consultation and co-operation. How can it be maintained by anybody that the present machinery is adequate or is even adequately used? The Imperial Conference is the only permanent joint organ of consultation and joint action, yet it is a startling fact that, in the course of a generation, the Imperial


Conference has met five times only—to be precise, in the past quarter of a century it has met only five times. On 2nd November, the Secretary of State for the Dominions made a significant declaration. He said we recognise fully:
That it is only if the British Commonwealth is of one mind about the many problems which will face the world after the war and only if we can work closely and confidently together, that we shall be able to play that great part which our long traditions and wide interests entitle us.
No doubt all the Dominion Prime Ministers will concur in that. The question is, How? There is only one way, and that is to get round the family table. There is great scope for the profitable elaboration of the existing machinery. Why should we seek, as some advocate, some startling innovation, some sensational constitutional novelty? The obvious machinery for agreement, to be "of one mind," lies in the Imperial Conference. Let it assemble not once in five years as it has done in the last quarter of a century but, say, once in 10 months. I do not suggest an annual conference, because I believe that would be a mistake for psychological reasons. Once in 10 months would involve 12 meetings in 10 years, instead of 10 meetings in 10 years and that number of times is more likely to meet the requirements of the Empire after the war. I have some reason too for believing that public opinion, and even the Governments of the Dominions, would agree to that suggestion.
Let His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom approach His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions with a view to establishing now a permanent Secretariat for an Imperial Conference, competent to deal on the secretarial, fact-finding, statistical and executive levels with all vital questions of concern to the component parts of the Empire. A permanent Secretariat would provide a new and better means of continuous consultation. It would be the medium through which the Dominions. could make their contribution in the important, early and formative stages, in the negotiation of any diplomatic treaty or commercial proposal.
How wide is the possible scope of inter-imperial consultation is not often realised. Questions of war and peace, of world economics and currency, questions of the relations of the advanced nations to the backward peoples of the world, questions

of air navigation, are all included in their potential scope, as well as such immediate and pressing problems as post-war settlement overseas and the future constitution of Newfoundland. How necessary this consultation may be is illustrated by the problems now facing the Empire, and indeed the whole world, in post-war planning, as the nature and limits of the great formative principle of regionalisation are studied, both as they affect the political and the economic fields.
A permanent Secretariat of the Imperial Conference would involve no diminution of or infringement upon any part of the sovereign authority of the Dominions. It would discharge two main functions. First, it would decide applications to new circumstances of principles laid down by the Imperial Conference. Secondly, where, owing to new events or changing circumstances such applications involved a new principle, concerning which it was doubtful whether any or all of the Dominions would agree, the Secretariat would be in a position to formulate the new principle and consult with the Dominions by cable or post.
It is true that, the suggestion of the Secretariat has been made before and rejected, and hon. Members may question whether the Dominions would not reject it now. I do not believe they would do so. On the contrary, I believe they would welcome the establishment of a Secretariat now. Former apprehensions, or should I say misapprehensions, of popular opinion in the Dominions which feared that such a Secretariat would develop into an overriding body, some imperial areopagus sitting in far away Whitehall, unduly sensitive to sinister, or allegedly sinister, financial influences, are misapprehensions which have largely passed away. They have passed away because popular as well as informed opinion in the Dominions has come increasingly to realise the reality of the equality of status formally guaranteed to them by the Statute of Westminster. They no longer have any doubts about that. Secondly, if there is one lesson which the war has taught popular opinion in all the major Dominions, including the United Kingdom, it is the value of the Empire when, and in so far as, its acts as a single cohesive unit.
I come now the questions of personnel and of finance. I suggest that the majority of the civil servants of an Imperial


Conference Secretariat should not and must not be appointed by the United Kingdom Government but that Government should be prepared to second civil servants at the request and desire of the Dominion Governments whenever such a request, was made. I think it is a matter of the first importance that the civil servants of such a Secretariat should not be subordinate to their individual Governments nor yet to that which they would represent; they should be paid not by the individual Governments but out of Imperial Conference Funds. If that were done, it would ensure that the civil servants concerned would feel themselves to be not the servants of the individual Governments concerned but of the Conference itself. I believe that if those two suggestions were adopted, any last lingering hesitations which may still exist in the minds of people overseas would vanish. No Dominion would then feel itself dependent upon the United Kingdom Civil Service. It would never feel itself in the hands of that Service, as indeed it could not be. It would never feel that Service to be guilty, however unconsciously, of suppression veri, through lack of knowledge or failure to understand and realise Dominion conditions.
I believe with every fibre of my being that Imperial cohesiveness and Imperial consolidation are absolutely vital, absolutely necessary for the future welfare and harmony of the world. Only a cohesive fellowship of Empire can give the world a clear example of permanent, fruitful co-operation of nations and of peoples, and I would plead most earnestly with the Government not to be baulked by the obvious difficulties. I know those difficulties only too well, but they can be overcome if only the Government will set before themselves and hold steadfastly to the great ideal of Imperial trust, Imperial partnership, co-operation and unity.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: I regret that I was unable to be present in the earlier hours of this Sitting, but I was pleased when I arrived in the Chamber to find that a Debate was proceeding on the Dominions and the Colonies, because I shared the feeling, which I am sure was felt by others, that it was rather deplorable that there should be no mention of them in the Gracious

Speech from the Throne this year. Last year very positive mention was made and a certain amount of action resulted during the ensuing 12 months. I feel that there are few things more important than the development, not merely of our friendly relations with the Dominions, but economic development between them and ourselves and more even with the Colonies. I agree that there are few of my Friends on this side during this Debate, for I cannot think there is anything more important for the future of the working people of this country than the development of the Dominions and the Empire, and I make no apology for the word "Empire."
I hope some good results will ensue from this Debate. We are committed to a great many good things. Everyone in the country wants the Beveridge scheme. Everybody wants a lot of things. They all cost money, and unless we do a lot more business as well as a lot more work, a great deal more overseas trading, for my own part as a realist I do not know where the money is coming from. We, in this Island, have coal and some iron. All the other materials which we need and use in our industries we have to import—cotton, wool, timber even to make our furniture and our homes, leather for our boots and shoes, iron and all the metals for our engineering. We are fortunate that our forbears sailed overseas and established trading stations where these goods could be obtained to keep us going with an abundant supply of materials. That is absolutely necessary for the future. Also it is equally necessary that we should have an expanding market for the products of this country which, whether we could or not, we do not consume, and our great hope lies mainly in our own Empire.
We all rejoice in the better relationship with America, but again as a realist I cannot forget that the United States are a very protectionist country, and I remember how they treated us after the last war in that respect. I rejoice even more in the successful development of Russia and of our friendship with Russia, because I think our future security very largely rests on our solidarity with Russia so far as foreign policy is concerned. But again Russia is the most protectionist country in all the world. She has an absolute embargo


against everything except what the State thinks it will import. The State controls all the imports and exports, and you cannot trade with Russia in the same way as with other nations. The emergence of China is a glorious thing. One can have almost unlimited hopes with regard to China. She has an open mind and has always had an open door for all the trade of the world.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Do I take it that my hon. Friend is advocating a sort of imperial economy rather than a world economy which appears the object of the Allied nations at the present time so as to adjust these tariffs he is talking about in order that we see no mare of them?

Mr. Walkden: I am all in favour of a world economy, but we have to do our own bit towards that. We have to do our job as a country and the British Commonwealth and Empire to do our share in the world economy. I quite accept the view that there should be agreement with all countries if you can get them to agree, but our experience was rather sad after the last war. That is why I am rather concerned about the development of our own estates. Referring again to China, it is one of the saddest things that whenever countries come to a new phase of their development, or when countries are given freedom that they have never had before, they ring themselves round with tariff walls. I hope that will not be the case with China and I hope that whoever tries to settle the affairs of the world after this awful war will disallow that sort of tariff-wall development if it is possible to provide against it. But the word "self-determination" is running round again. I do not care much for it. I would rather have international agreement, but too many countries when they get self-determination make it Their first business to build up tariffs. We have the worst instance on our doorstep. The Irish Free State immediately put up tariff barriers and punished its own people by these tariff barriers, causing high prices and ever-increasing cost of living. There is a great danger that that sort of thing may develop after this war.
I make one practical suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister, who fortunately is with us now. That is to encourage the greater reciprocal movement of our people. Under Empire arrangements

provision should be made whereby as much as possible of the social insurance which is provided for working people in this country by the State should be available if they go abroad to other Commonwealth or Empire countries. I believe that many of our young folk who are coming back from the Forces, men and women, would be quite willing to go and take jobs anywhere. If I were a young man, I would sooner go to Singapore than to Birmingham or Manchester. Let us educate our people to grow up like that, to have an adventurous disposition, to go and do things. When we had emigration questions under discussion when I was a member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress this question emerged continuously, that if a young unemployed engineer, or an older engineer, or a pattern maker or a builder, for instance, thought of going abroad to the Dominions, he would say to his trade union, "I would not mind going, I would like to go, but I shall sacrifice all my State insurance if I go." I ask the Government seriously to consider whether they could not make reciprocal arrangements with the Dominion Governments whereby the benefits of British social insurance could be taken to the Dominions as a live policy to be maintained so long as the person concerned is resident in the Dominions, that if he lives there to the end of his days and dies there he shall have his benefits while he live and his dependants shall have the appropriate benefits when he dies.
I would ask, above all, that the old age and widows' and orphans' pensions benefits and the death benefit should be maintained if contributions are paid. It is rather dismal to talk about death benefits—the insurance companies call it life insurance, which sounds better—but working people are very keen on it. They like a nice funeral. The insurance companies arrange for the maintenance of their policies for middle-class people, and the Government, I am sure could provide for the maintenance of working people's State policies by arrangement. If there should be any difficulty with the Dominions about it, there could be none with the Colonies, because they are under the Crown; and I hope there will be more openings for young people in the Colonies. The Consular service is available to look after these policies, and working arrange-


ments could be made, by agreement with the other Governments.
I have made a suggestion about the people who I hope will go out and develop the Empire, as their forbears have done in the past. Coming from Bristol, I cannot help thinking like this, because so many of our Western men have been the makers of our Empire and I glory in it. We ought to see what we can do to help the Colonies, as well as the people who go there. It would be a great and generous action for the Government, if they set up a Conference of the kind mentioned in the Amendment, to enable the Colonies to be represented there, too, or else to have another all-in gathering for them. When that Colonial Conference takes place, the Government should tell the Colonies that when this war is over we shall give them something which will help them very much. There will be hundreds of thousands of first-rate vehicles, from great army lorries down to little jeeps. We shall not want them in this country, but one of the greatest needs of the Colonies is transport. Do not let us send this spare transport to dumps near Slough or Didcot, as we did after the last war, where it was left standing in mud for months and months, until it was sold for knock-out prices. Incidentally, the country was swamped with a surplus of road transport, which nearly bankrupted the railways. I suggest that the Government should promise the Colonies all our spare army vehicles directly the war is over. This would aid their development enormously.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: While generally supporting this Amendment, I should like to point out the vital importance of improved machinery for consultation on policy, more particularly in the form of regional conferences, not only for the Dominions, but for the Colonies as well. Now that the Dominions have their own diplomatic arrangements, it seems more important than ever to see that diplomatic policy should coincide. It might make all the difference between peace and war. I want to make two protests. In the first place, we are always hearing that England stood alone in 1940. England did not stand alone; Great Britain did not stand alone; it was the British Empire which stood alone. Canadian troops were over here

as early as 1939. I would like to put it on record that even in our darkest hour I never met a single Empire volunteer who doubted that we should win. Secondly, we are continually hearing men from the Dominions referred to over here as Colonials. Many of them resent that.
One of the great faults of our educational system is that we have neglected to teach the children about the Empire. Only the other day the wife of a distinguished Dominion officer, when travelling by bus, met a young student, and when she mentioned where she came from, this boy said, "Oh, you belong to us, don't you." For somebody from a free and self-governing Dominion, that was a pretty bad insult. The time has come to teach the children that not only has the Empire saved us in this war, that we should have been sunk without it, but that our very livelihood depends on co-operation with our Empire and on its prosperity. In 1940 I was assured that a scheme was being drawn up by the educational authorities to spread this knowledge of the Empire, but I am afraid the results have not been very noticeable. There seem to be very few people at present who remember that in 1940, in the Battle of Britain, 25 per cent. of our pilots were Empire volunteers. I believe that the proportion is even greater now. If the school children of this country realised what the Empire means to us, it would result in great benefit in the future. In the past we have had an Empire Marketing Board. Surely something more is needed. We do not want just to tell people to buy Empire produce. If we could tell people how the Empire stood by us and what it means to us both in peace and war, that would make all the difference in the world.

Mr. Palmer: I do not want to range over all the topics which have been raised during this very interesting Debate, but I would like to refer more particularly to the question of Imperial relations in general. May I add my compliments to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary upon his first statement in this House on these questions? My only regret is that there has been such a long interval since this House last discussed these questions that he has not had a previous opportunity. I almost felt, as the Debate proceeded, that we were dealing with a subject with which we are not


sufficiently familiar. Now, in discussing this question we have to consider it from two aspects—from the points of view of the cohesiveness of the Empire and of the question of machinery. There is a little danger that because of the magnificent war effort, to which tributes have been paid, and of the complete unity of purpose and action during the war we might come to assume that this unity of action and purpose will automatically continue after the war. We have not to think whether tradition and. sentiment and the memories of our war effort will be enough, but what will be the common interests in the future which alone can hold us together. Questions of machinery are entirely subsidiary to that major point. We have to consider that point against the world background. We are living in a completely unknown kind of world. To start with, in Europe we are going to have a situation that no one can foresee, except in one particular, and that is, that it will be a situation without any historical precedent at all. It will involve much greater demands and responsibility on the part of this country than we have ever before ever had to undertake. If we consider the Far East, it is obvious that some members of the British Commonwealth will have a more direct interest in the Far East than in Europe. They all have, with the exception of South Africa and Eire.
The question is, Where do we start our thought about the future? At the present time we can only start from the very indefinite statements in the Atlantic Charter and more recently in the Moscow Agreement, but it seems from these statements that we are moving into a world where great Powers will play a larger part than hitherto and smaller Powers must be content to group themselves as satellites round the greater ones if they are to have a say. It looks as if it will be that type of world. If that is so, the Dominions and we ourselves will have to consider whether we are going to pursue our individual interests as units, in which case the United Kingdom will become nothing but a European island, or whether we are going to try and act together. What is the logic of the situation? Have we really to make a choice between a Federation or a closer union of some kind or another on the one hand, or become just a number of small independent Powers on the other?
I do not think that we have to make the choice in these harsh terms. The British Commonwealth has always been a great puzzle to foreigners. It presents a strange picture of a kind of informal unit which lacks either plan or precision or, indeed, method or precedent. It reminds me always of that clause which occurs, I think, in the Athanasian Creed of Three Incomprehensibles vet One Incomprehensible. But what is it, in fact, but a system in which British common sense has been able tolerantly to recognise the facts of an organic unit of natural growth? In the future I do not think we can afford to be any more logical than in the past, or less sensible. We must approach these problems by considering, first of all, for what specific purposes we want to co-operate. After we have decided that, we can consider the methods by which we can best pursue those purposes. If we start the other way round, by trying to set up an elaborate constitutional machinery of a new kind without considering whether it will suit the specific purposes for which it is devised we shall certainly run into trouble.
In considering our specific purposes, I have already mentioned the position in Europe and the Far East, and in trying to consider what policy each individual member will wish to pursue, either separately or in common, it will be necessary to take into account at least the following five factors: First of all, there is the extent of the real interest that each individual has in the particular part of the world for which a policy is being devised, whether in Europe, the Middle East or the Far East. Secondly, the question is how far it will be possible to rely for a long period on the durability of its own public opinion, and, thirdly, it must relate its policy to its own capacity and resources as well as to those of the common pool. It must take into account the policies of great Powers outside the Commonwealth; and, finally, it must take into account any general security system or regional organisation that may be set up. All these factors are at the present time largely imponderable, but it is true to say that now, in this country and throughout all the Dominions, there is, and there will be for some little time to come, a very general desire, indeed the firm intention and belief, that it is essential to achieve unity on the major aspects of policy both political and strategic.
There is another vast question to be considered too—the economic question. It is difficult in these days to separate economics from foreign policy, and we shall have to consider all things like trade and currency, control of raw material, civil aviation, shipping and all these relief problems. I do not think any more than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare), whose speech we so much enjoyed, that we can devise any stereotyped machinery to deal with all these problems. It would be a great mistake to try. On the contrary, we are entering a world in which experiments must be tried all the time if we are to make international and world government anything of a reality in a practical sense. We must always be trying new devices. In the past British people all over the world have been very competent in devising new and practical types of machinery to cope with problems occurring in the particular circumstances in which they arise, but owing to the fact that all these economic, political and strategic problems are coming along, I very much welcome the Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friends. It is clear that there is need or there will soon be need for a discussion between the Prime Ministers of the British Commonwealth of Nations and constituent members on these various problems. There will be also during these discussions a need for reviewing the machinery whereby the highest degree of consultation can be achieved in the future.
A good deal has been said during the Debate about this machinery, but I would like to make a few comments. It so happened that I made a study of this subject a few years ago. I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner)—I am sure he will not object—when he says that the machinery has not been adequate in the past. I think it can be criticised in certain particulars, but I think it is doubtful whether there could have been any better result as regards co-operation with any different machinery, in the circumstances of the past. During the war this system of the High Commissioners' daily conference has obviously worked very smoothly and well. But what I think you may have to do, in view of the questions which will come up for decision over different fields,

is to intensify your consultation and co-operation but always within the existing fundamental constitutional structure. If you once get into the field where the autonomy of different members of the Commonwealth comes into question, you will run into considerable trouble at once. That has always been the rock on which proposals have failed in the past and will fail even more rapidly in the future if an attempt is made to interfere there. As I have said, I think it is possible to intensify methods in the present circumstances.
The question of a Commonwealth Secretariat was first discussed in 1905. It has been turned down on different occasions, generally, I think, by the Canadians. I have a quotation here from Sir Wilfred Laurier who, in 1911, said:
If the body be anything at all it will be inclined to exercise its own influence and impress its own views on the Government
I am sure the fact has been overlooked that the Dominions Office itself has performed the function of an Imperial Secretariat all the time. What is being proposed to-day is only a small modification of that, namely, that you propose seating it in a separate building and deriving its personnel from different parts of the Commonwealth. However, I think it is one of the useful suggestions that should be examined. Then there is the question of representation here. I was not absolutely certain why it was that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich did not seem to think that a Standing Committee of Ministers would achieve a different purpose from a Standing Committee of High Commissioners. That was the inference I drew from his remarks. I should have thought it might have made a difference if the High Commissioners over here were, in fact, members of their own Commonwealth Governments. I should have thought it was worth considering whether the system could not be modified in that direction.
As regards other things, I think you will have to devise a number of ad hoc methods of dealing with them. I suggest that the best thing to do is to have an Imperial Conference and have that body set up a committee for a review of their machinery, as has been done in the past, in 1923, 1926, after the last war. The Imperial Conference has always reviewed this machinery each time it has met. I doubt whether it would alter anything fundamentally, but it may tighten things


up. Behind all these discussions in the political and economic spheres, there is one thing we have to keep in mind, namely, that we have a common interest which is greater than all those which I have mentioned so far. It is that we must try and keep established in this way an order of things in which ordinary men and women can manage to live their lives as real human beings. If we can manage to keep that principle in our minds in all we are striving to do in building up the Commonwealth in the future, then we cannot go wrong.

Professor Savory: I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) on his very eloquent speech with a great deal of which I am in agreement and also my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) on at last succeeding in bringing before the House this question of the Dominions. In the minds of the public outside the idea prevails that when the Estimates for the Dominions Office come up every year there is an opportunity for discussing them. But I have been in this House for a number of years and have had no opportunity of speaking on this question. We have heard various interesting quotations to-day from the eloquent speech delivered at the Guildhall recently by the Secretary of State for the Dominions. There is one further brief quotation I would like to make from that speech and it is as follows:
The success of the policy initiated by the Statute of Westminster has been proved finally in the last 20 years when the Dominions, free to make their own choice, stood unflinchingly by the Mother country and in so doing waived their liberties and their very existence as independent units.
The whole of that passage turns upon the Statute of Westminster when it says that its success has been proved finally in the last 20 years. That very optimistic speech struck me with astonishment, knowing what has been the effect of the Statute of Westminster with regard to one of our Dominions, a Dominion which has been referred to to-day and the nearest of the Dominions with which we are most intimately concerned. Whenever an Ulster Member gets up to speak on this question he is looked upon as being somewhat prejudiced. What I intend to say to-day will, I hope, dispel this illusion,

because I wish to treat the question judicially, impartially, objectively and historically as if I were a lecturer treating it in the year 1960. So I hope that nothing I shall say will in any way increase the tenseness of the situation, because I desire to confine myself solely to facts.
If I may indulge for one moment in a personal touch, I would like to say that I am one of the last surviving links of the connection between Northern and Southern Ireland. Of all the Boards which existed for the control of Ireland, the most important to my mind was the Intermediate or Secondary Education Board, to which I had the honour to belong. We were nominated for life by the Lord Lieutenant. We had our own funds under our own control, and we were responsible to nobody except to our-selves, I can only say that at the meetings we attended in Dublin month after month we met together and discussed these very important matters with the greatest possible friendliness and good will. If there was any question which aroused excitement, it was purely an educational one. For instance, I most strongly insisted that for all French examinations in Ireland we should have an oral test. The gentleman who supported me most heartily was the Lord Chief Justice, a very noble representative of the South. Of that Board which was a connecting link for the whole of Ireland there are to-day only two survivors besides myself—one the Archbishop of Armagh and the other the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, the Right Hon. Sir Thomas Molony. Therefore I do say that I have been accustomed to treat with all classes, with all differences of creed and politics and, further, that I do know my Ireland, because I have had the pleasure over and over again of visiting all the 32 counties. I make these remarks to show that I shall try to treat this question without any prejudice whatsoever.
So far as the Statute of Westminster is concerned, I feel very strongly that a good deal of misapprehension prevails with regard to it. Do hon. Members recollect that it is still ultra vires for Australia, Canada and New Zealand to pass any law which is contrary to their Constitutions. If the Clause which was so eloquently recommended by the present Prime Minister had been inserted


in the Statute, none of the difficulties which have since arisen would have taken place. That Clause, moved by Colonel Gretton, was as follows:
Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorise the legislature of the Irish Free State to repeal, amend or alter the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act of 1922 or the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922.
That was the safeguard on which the present Prime Minister insisted with such eloquence. I only wish that in the time at my disposal I could quote from that very wonderful speech. That Amendment was not adopted, because the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State, Mr. Cosgrave, sent a letter to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, of which the essential passage is as follows:
I need scarcely impress upon you that the maintenance of the happy relations which now exist between out two countries is absolutely dependent upon the continued acceptance by each of us of the good faith of the other. This situation has been constantly present to our minds, and we have reiterated time and again that the Treaty is an agreement which could only be altered by consent.
Note a very important passage:
I mention this particularly because there seems to be a mistaken view in some quarters that the solemnity of this instrument in our eyes could derive any additional strength from a Parliamentary law. So far from this being the case any attempt to erect a statute of the British Parliament into a safeguard of the Treaty would have quite the opposite effect here, and would rather give rise in the minds of our people to a doubt as to the sanctity of this instrument.
That statement by the Prime Minister of the Free State had an immense effect not only upon this House but also upon the other House, where it was frankly accepted by Lord Salisbury. But there is all the difference in the world between repealing a Statute and repudiating a Treaty. The question came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as to whether the Irish Free State had the right to repeal the Clause in the Treaty which guaranteed to citizens of the Free State the right of appeal to His Majesty in Council. It was the famous case of the Lough Erne Fisheries; a gentleman named Moore was being deprived of a right which went back to the time of King John, and he got leave from the Privy Council to appeal. But the Irish Free State retrospectively passed a law depriving its citizens of that right of appeal. The cones-

quence was that the Privy Council gave a most important decision. They said that in accordance with Section 2 of the Statute of Westminster legally the Irish Free State had the right to repeal that Clause in the Treaty, but they added this very essential Clause:
It would be out of place to criticise the legislation enacted by the Irish Free State Legislature.
But the Board desired to add that "they were expressing no opinion on any contractual obligation under which, regard being had to the terms of the Treaty, the Irish Free State lay." In other words, they held the view which I have expressed that there was still, as the Treaty so clearly set forth, and as Mr. Cosgrave had assured the House, this "contractual obligation." But legally and technically it was possible under Section 2 of the Statute of Westminster to repeal every Clause in the Treaty and in spite of the protests of the Secretary of State for the Dominions at the time that was done with the result that finally the new Constitution of 1937 was set up in which there is no reference whatever to the King or to the British Commonwealth of Nations. The name Eire has been recognised by the Act of the Imperial Parliament of May, 1938, as consisting of the 26 counties which formerly formed the Irish Free State. That is the way the Imperial Parliament has interpreted the word "Eire" which etymologically means Ireland. It is certain that none of us in Ulster has ever attempted to throw any doubt whatever upon the right of Eire to maintain her neutrality. Not a single one of our statesmen has ever said anything whatever against it or reflected upon it in any way. But neutrality has certain obligations, and we maintain that when Mr. de Valera went out of his way on 28th January,1942, to protest against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland he was committing what was certainly a breach of neutrality. I extracted from the Secretary of State for the Dominions a copy of that protest with permission to publish it. The Secretary of State was under the impression—and he told the House so—that it had been published already, but he was misinformd. Only brief summaries of it had appeared. The longest was in the "Irish Times," but it was never published in full till I, availing myself of the permission given me by the Secretary of


State, published it in the Irish papers, It may be said that that was a long time ago. It would be quite improper, and I shall not attempt to make any reply to Mr. de Valera's speech in the Dail of a fortnight ago, but it is possible for me to say that he reaffirmed the whole of his protest and read it out word for word to the Dail, because he said he wanted to put it on record. That protest says that
to partition the territory of an ancient nation is one of the cruellest wrongs that can be committed against a people
He compares it with the "former partition of Poland" and with the "projected partition of the United States" which Abraham Lincoln was determined to prevent "even at the cost of fighting one of the bitterest civil wars in history." He goes on to say:
The maintenance of the partition of Ireland is as indefensible as aggressions against small nations elsewhere, which it is the avowed purpose of Great Britain and the United States in this war to bring to an end.
I need scarcely develop these three propositions. Everyone remembers what the partition of Poland meant at the end of the 18th century, when Poland by a threefold partition was completely split up between Prussia, Russia and Austria. We remember the eloquent letter of the Empress Maria Theresa to her daughter Marie Antoinette, Queen of France, in which she said that the partition was contrary to her conscience but that she had made her son co-equal in the Empire and it was he who had forced through this policy. As for the comparison between the invasion by Germany of Belgium and Holland and the maintenance of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, I shall not discuss it but shall leave it to my hearers to make their own comments.
What I would point out, however, is that the so-called partition of Ireland has three times been ratified by the Southern Irish themselves. It was first ratified in 1916 after the Easter Rebellion, when Mr. Asquith instructed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caernarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to enter into negotiations with both parties. It was agreed to by an overwhelming majority of the Nationalist representatives of Northern Ireland assembled in solemn conclave that they would, in order that Home Rule could be brought into operation immediately, assent to the exclusion of the six

counties of Northern Ireland. In the treaty of 1921 exactly the same guarantee was made. The Parliament of Northern Ireland had already been opened by the King in person on 22nd June, and when the treaty of December, 1921, was agreed to, it was made with the exclusion from the Irish Free State of the six northern counties. The frontier was the subject of a Boundary Commission, and when the commission would have come to a unanimous conclusion a copy of the proposed map was published by an indiscretion of the "Morning Post" on 7th November, 1925. The result was that the Government of the Free State took fright, came to the Prime Minister of this country, and concluded the famous Tri-partite agreement of December, 1925, under which the Irish Free State for the third time guaranteed the integrity of the six counties. That agreement was passed through both Houses of the Dublin Parliament by overwhelming majorities. Surely if any law could be binding, nothing could be more binding than that solemn agreement signed by the three Governments of Great Britain, the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. It should not be forgotten that when the Agreement was signed, the Irish Free State was given the most valuable quid pro quo. The amount of the claim of Great Britain under Clause 5 of the Treaty of 1921 to receive from the Irish Free State a proportionate share of the public debt of the United Kingdom and the cost of the war was estimated by the then Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin) in this House as no less than £150,000,000 and by Lord Birkenhead in the House of Lords at a similar sum. This Clause 5 was abrogated. A free gift of this liability was made to the Irish Free State—an act of amazing generosity—that sealed this most solemn agreement under which the Six Counties were guaranteed to Northern Ireland. To call it in question by a protest made to President Roosevelt against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland and by the High Commissioner for Eire handing this protest in person to the Secretary of State for the Dominions was a breach of neutrality. We, in Northern Ireland, are never the attacking party. We are always on the defensive. Our one desire is to maintain our existing constitution ratified by so many general elections during the last 22 years. There is, however, a per-


petual sword of Damocles hanging over our heads owing to this continual obsession with regard to the so-called "crime of partition." Therefore we are obliged to act on the defensive. If we were left alone and allowed to work out our own salvation in peace there would never be any quarrel or dispute between the North and the South of Ireland. All we ask is for the maintenance of our existing constitution, three times guaranteed by the Irish Free State which surely is a point of honour to be observed inviolate by this country. I should like to develop these points at greater length, but the end of the time allocated to me has been reached. I would conclude by making an appeal to the House to believe that we come before it without any prejudice, without any bitterness and without any hatred towards the South but that we simply demand that we should be allowed to keep what we hold, preserve our existing Constitution and maintain the link to which we attach such immense importance, this link with Great Britain which means that we are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory) will not expect me at this time to enter into the somewhat tragic story of Ireland and deal with the points which he has raised. I would like to say on behalf of the Labour Party that we welcome this Debate on imperial relations. Debates in this House on imperial policy are, in our judgment, far too infrequent. It is not always realised that this House has a considerable responsibility in regard to imperial co-operation and particularly with respect to the 60,000,000 subject peoples inside the Colonial Empire. Our opportunities for discussion are far too few. Therefore we are glad that the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) initiated this Debate, although on behalf of my party I must express a little amazement at his ignorance of the party's history. The Labour Party has a natural interest in overseas development because so many of its own kith and kin have gone out and played their part in the building up of the Commonwealth of Nations; because, too, in many of the Dominions young Labour Parties have taken root, have grown and have assumed the re-

sponsibility of office; and also because in the Labour Party we have tended to take a critical attitude over a long period of years in regard to imperialism and expansionist policy and other questions of Imperial policy. Our history as a party in regard to Empire affairs, in regard to the development of the Commonwealth, cannot be assailed, it is both deep and long.
In the nature of things this Debate must unfortunately appear and will read somewhat lopsided. Important territories have had to be excluded from our considerations to-day. The hon. Member for Belfast University reminded us of the significance of some of the problems in regard to Eire. We have also been reminded that this House should spend a little more time in discussing the future constitution and social progress of Newfoundland. Let me say in passing that we very much hope that reasonable facilities will be found for a full Debate on Newfoundland. We feel that it would be unjust to the people of Newfoundland if this House did not make it possible that at least one day should be given to a consideration of their affairs. At the same time let me say with what sympathy we listened to the proposals of the Government in regard to the future constitutional development of Newfoundland. It is too complex and important a statement for us to consider at this stage in to-day's Debate We should not allow the problems of this important territory to be, as it were, mixed up with the problems raised in the Debate to-day. We have also had to exclude from consideration so important a sub-continent as India, the future of Burma, the future of Southern Rhodesia, the future of Ceylon. Our discussion to-day has, in the nature of things, been within the narrow limits of unity inside the Dominions themselves.
There has been a great deal of common ground in the discussion. We are all tremendously conscious that to the people of the Dominions we are tied by sentiment, by good will, by gratitude and by comradeship—comradeship in arms and comradeship in defence of our common way of life. There is a very deep sympathy and understanding between us. Nevertheless, there is no going back on the independent sovereignty which the respective Dominions enjoy. They have developed a character of their own; they


are developing their own individuality; they have their own special problems; it is unlikely that our discussion would be fruitful if based on the assumption that the idea of federalism is at all practical.
I share the view that was put by the hon. Member for South-East St. Pancras as well as by the Under-Secretary, that federalism is not the way of advance, that the idea of federalism is not practical politics in any discussion of our relations with the Dominions. Nevertheless, we are moving into a more organised and a more closely knit world, and because of new problems of defence and the emergence of new Powers with wide-world interests it is wise that we should take stock to see whether the present set-up of consultation in the Commonwealth is adequate, whether there ought to be or can be other methods for improving co-operative action, and, in the shaping of policy whether new machinery or means can be found for promoting greater unity. I think the fact that Mr. Curtin has raised this matter compels us to give some serious consideration to it. It may be that our responsibilities, as the British nation, are global and that in the new conditions of the world they are increasingly difficult to discharge. We have to inquire whether and in what ways Britain should adjust itself to fit in with the economic and social development that is going on in the new world.
So far as consultation and co-operation between the Dominions are concerned we have heard a number of practical suggestions for improving the methods of co-operation but only those with practical executive experience can judge their value. It has been argued that there should be more frequent Imperial Conferences, that there should be a permanent Secretariat, that there should be a permanent office which should conduct research into the problems which are common to the Dominions and that there should be better machinery for maintaining in peace-time the daily consultations which have gone on during the war with the High Commissioners. I would respectfully suggest that all these proposals for the improvement of machinery are not for the British Government to impose but must be determined in consultation with the Dominions themselves. Each Dominion must be aware whether the existing machinery is suitable and adequate and whether it meets its needs. Consequently,

I think it would be unreasonable that this country should take the lead until it is clear that existing arrangements are inadequate for the Commonwealth's future needs. It seems to me to be a question which will have to be dealt with at the Imperial Conference or at a meeting of Dominion Prime Ministers. Let them express themselves as to what is required. I am perfectly certain that the British Government has the will and the desire that all should be done to promote greater unity and co-operation.
It is obvious that there are many problems which we share in common and on which consultations and closer unity would be of value. Some of those problems have been referred to to-day. There are the problems of immigration, communications, shipping, aviation and settlement. There are questions relating to world security and of Defence and how Britain should adjust herself to the new conditions. Of course there ought to be regular means of consultation on these problems, which are of vital interest and importance to all the members of the Commonwealth.
Further, there is a great deal we can learn inside the Commonwealth from one another. We are now all interested in problems of social security. Most of us, for instance, recognise that New Zealand can tell us and instruct us quite a good deal in that respect. Likewise, Australia has made a large number of interesting economic and social experiments which it would be to the advantage of this country to study. One welcomes the work which has been done by the Empire Parliamentary Association to promote greater understanding and contact among the Common-wealth peoples as well as in the publications which they issue from time to time informing us of the work which is being done in the Empire in the social, economic and political fields. But however desirable it may be to promote co-operation and unity I think it would be a mistake to imagine that the Dominion nations will always think as we do on many of the problems in which we have a common interest. That was well demonstrated on a number of vital issues before the war. Therefore we must be both tolerant and flexible in our ideas if we are to hope that effective unity either in foreign policy or even in problems of defence is to be achieved when the war is over merely by the creation of machinery. The opportunities for consultation should be there, with a


view to trying to reach unity of action and policy. I would also add that it seems to me that in developing co-operation and unity in the Commonwealth it would be unfortunate, and this is particularly true in the economic field, if we were to create the impression that we are trying to build up a bloc concerned only with our own material interests and not concerned with the larger interests of the world.
During the Debate the suggestion was made by quite a number of Members—it was mentioned particularly by the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras—that we should see to what extent the idea of Empire Regional Councils could be developed. I think that in general principle most of us would find ourselves in agreement because many of us are conscious that many of the problems of the great backward areas, the unregulated areas, the undeveloped areas, are likely to be solved only as a result of some kind of international consultation and international co-operation. Many of the great problems of the Continent of Africa, problems relating to health, of soil conservation, of irrigation—many such problems—are likely to be solved only as a result of the fullest co-operation of the persons, the countries, the peoples, the Powers, concerned in great regions. Therefore there is a great deal to be said for a beginning in such co-operation through the creation of Empire Regional Councils. But I would like to suggest or to offer a warning in regard to this particular proposition. The hon. Member for South East St. Pancras in speaking of these Councils said they would be associations of interested parties within the zone or area. What precisely does he mean? Does this mean that only the Imperial powers or the nations which have interests in this zone are to form the Councils?

Sir A. Beit: I would make it clear that when speaking about Empire Regional Councils I was not referring to the International Regional Councils which came up in another context in a speech by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and which I entirely support. I want to get Empire Regional Counicls going first. These would be an association of the various British Governments within a given area, Crown, Colonial, Dominion and United Kingdom.

Mr. Creech Jones: I accept that, of course. But it is important not only that the Governments as such should be represented on those Councils, but that the peoples who are affected by the decisions of those Councils should themselves be associated with the work which those zonal bodies do. It will not be sufficient to create the Regional Councils if the representation of the peoples concerned is ignored. The warning which I want to give in regard to Empire Regional Councils is that we must be extremely careful that the responsibility that rests on this House is not divided. We have taken on very profound commitments to the Colonial peoples, and we cannot share with others such definite obligations. When the Colonial Secretary made his announcement the other day in regard to Regional Councils for Colonial areas, there was an immediate reaction from the more enlightened and intelligent peoples of West Africa. They objected to any intermediate authority coming in between the Colony and the Colonial Power. In the development of such Councils, one has to be extremely careful that the Colonial peoples do not suspect the incorporation in the work of such bodies of peoples or powers or interests which they are apt to regard as reactionary. That is particularly true in regard to South Africa. Whatever may be the excellent intentions of Field-Marshal Smuts, there is a suspicion among all Africans that such co-operation with the Union Government may lead to the incorporation in the policy of such regional bodies of the somewhat reactionary native policy which operates in the Union of South Africa. I put that point by way of warning, because I and many members of my party are anxious that there should be some development of co-operation in the Imperial, as well as in the international, field.
We are under a great obligation to the Dominion nations. In turn, those nations are under a great obligation to us. If we can get unity of policy, we, the nations standing together inside the Commonwealth, can make an enormous contribution to peace and play a very great part in building up the world, restoring the backward areas, and creating those conditions on which the co-operation of all peoples can be based.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary


of State for the Dominions dealt, in what I thought an admirable speech, with a very large part of the subject matter of this Amendment. I intend to say only a few words. The Amendment regrets that there has not been an Imperial Conference. That cannot be an attack on His Majesty's Government, because the calling of an Imperial Conference is not an act of the Government of Great Britain. It is a matter for the consent of all the free and equal partners in the Commonwealth. What we have desired to get throughout the war is the greatest amount of co-operation and the greatest amount of meeting. We have for a long time tried to get a meeting of the Prime Ministers. The hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) was, I thought under an entire misapprehension. He seemed to have a picture of aggrieved Prime Ministers running from their Dominions over here to make their complaints. That is not the picture at all. On the contrary, we have constantly invited Prime Ministers to come over here. We have rejoiced when they have come, and we have invited them to come again. He suggested that Field-Marshal Smuts was running over here for some purpose of which he did not know. The fact is that Field-Marshal Smuts is a very great man, and everybody here appreciates his value fully.

Squadron-Leader Donner: I did not say that at all.

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will look at his remarks.

Squadron-Leader Donner: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also look at them.

Mr. Attlee: He asked what was the reason we had him running up here. He made the same remark with regard to other Dominions' representatives. He may not have meant it, but that is the impression he gave.

Squadron-Leader Donner: I did not say that the Prime Ministers of the Dominions travelled here to complain. What I did say was that imperfect machinery of inter-Imperial consultation was not solely but largely responsible for their invaluable visits and had made them necessary.

Mr. Attlee: I agree that we might have better machinery, but that was certainly the impression the hon. and gallant Member

gave. It was merely a matter of complaint that Prime Ministers only come here through the absence of other machinery. When you are dealing with matters in war-time, the only people who can really discuss them are responsible people, and you cannot get Prime Ministers very easily from their Dominions, and they cannot all come at the same time. That is the difficulty. The Dominions are in different climates, have their Parliaments meeting at different times, and they have their elections at different times, and it is extraordinarily difficult to assemble people here at the present time. It has been of immense value throughout the war that we have had a constant succession of visits from Prime Ministers of Dominions and other representatives, but we have not been able to gather them together at the same time. The Members who have spoken were wise to avoid the over-elaboration of theoretical Constitutions. Some people love to write great paper Constitutions for the world and the British Empire. That is certainly not the way in which we have built up our own democracy in this country, and it is not the way in which the relationship between the various parts of the Dominion has proceeded.

Mr. Maxton: It is the way that America was built, and it has worked all right.

Mr. Attlee: That experiment has been going on for some time. I do not deny that that is a method which has worked in that country but it has not been so in our relations with Dominions. The strait waistcoat in which the Colonies were put by all kinds of law has gradually been loosened until they have arrived at a position of complete equality. What the world has been surprised at, is the way it works with that absence of machinery. I suggest that it is due to the fact that you have people with a common mind, a common outlook and a common method of working. We shall be very ill-advised if we try to over-elaborate now. The hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) went rather far in suggesting that we should have an Imperial Conference every ten months. I do not know whether he has had the advantage of attending an Imperial conference but I once assisted a Prime Minister at an Imperial conference, and it was a big "set out" and meant an awful lot of


work. I do not think that a constant succession of Imperial conferences every ten months would really indicate that we were closer to the Dominions any more than a number of very formal dinner parties means that you are specially friends with the people over the way. You are much more friendly if you can drop in for breakfast, so to speak. That is what really happens in the relationship of the British Commonwealth. There is a constant relationship, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, in various ways, through High Commissioners, visits of Prime Ministers and correspondence, and it has far more effect than any number of grand parades. You want a certain number, but you will find that the value of an Imperial Conference has been rather to set a formal seal on what has already been accomplished than to start something quite new. On that general point, I rather agree with the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Palmer) than with the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke in his line as to how far we should endeavour to increase this machinery. Let me say how much I agree with him, and also with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) when he emphasised the point. It is not a matter in which one part of the Commonwealth lays down machinery and says, "Take it or leave it," but it has to be worked out by all of them, It is no good suggesting that this would be a good idea if so-and-so proposed it. You have to know what the reception of others is to be, and you might find that they did not agree. Therefore, the method of trial and error by which we have worked has really worked pretty well. This close co-operation between every part of the Commonwealth and Empire will be extremely important in the post-war world.
I hope we have got away from that idea of the value of the extreme fragmentation of the world under absolute sovereignty. That has certainly not brought peace. Free association, of which I believe we are a notable example, is to my mind the way to get greater stability, and it is important that this immense area and their populations, all brought together with peaceful co-operation, should be there in the world as one of the big units. There are four big units, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the

United States, the British Commonwealth and Empire and China. On the whole we are more likely to get agreement between four big units than if all the world is cut up into small aggressively sovereign States. I should suggest that in the process of time and in the development of the British Commonwealth we have moved away from the time in which it was quite necessary to assert complete sovereignty, but, having arrived at the stage of equality, you can then get back and begin again building up full co-operation. There again I do not think that will be done by the over-elaboration of machinery.
I have only two other points to make. One is that I hope we shall have enough time to discuss fully the question of Newfoundland. That is obviously a separate question which could not be well mixed up with this Debate. The other is that I did not quite understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory) was after—I was not here all the time—but I will read his speech with great care and, I hope, draw great value from it. Meanwhile I suggest that the Debate has served a very useful purpose in emphasising that in this war one of the remarkable things has been the way in which every part of the Commonwealth has stood together under a tremendous strain, and that indicates the strength that there is in free institutions.

Mr. Ammon: Can my right hon. Friend give us any hope that we can have the discussion on Newfoundland before we rise for Christmas?

Mr. Attlee: I hope so. I am now engaged in conversations.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what form such a discussion would take? A good will mission was sent to get contact with the Newfoundland people and to return and report to Parliament. It would seem to me to be quite unfair to have a discussion on this matter on an Adjournment Motion, since the House is due to take important decisions as the result of their investigations.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member is quite wrong. This House did not send out a mission.

Mr. Maxton: I refreshed my memory by carefully looking up in Hansard the


statement the right hon. Gentleman made when he announced the drawing-up of that mission. He very definitely promised this House that we would have a report from the members of the mission.

Mr. Attlee: I can assure the hon. Member that I said quite clearly that there was to be no written report. I recall very clearly what I said. I said I hoped that when the hon. Members came back to this country they would have an opportunity of talking to and informing other right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member is wrong in suggesting that the mission was sent out by this House. It was not; it was sent out by the Secretary of State for the Dominions.

Mr. Maxton: Yes, naturally, but it was representing this House and not His Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman himself, in announcing it, laid stress on the fact that there were to be three Members of this House sent out, first of all to inform themselves and then to inform the House of Commons. I see that I have 10 more minutes left to me [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Well, the Government may wish to bring forward some other Business, but they have not asked my permission, and now that I have this time I do not need to limit myself to ordinary question and answer.

Dr. Russell Thomas: On a point of Order. I believe the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) rose to ask a question of the Deputy-Prime Minister. It is possible that two or three other Members, including myself, also want to ask questions. I believe that the hon. Member has not the Floor of the House and has not been called by you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Maxton: Mr. Speaker called me, but he certainly did not know what was up when he did so. The right hon. Gentleman was under an obligation to restore self-government to Newfoundland. He felt that this House needed to be better informed before coming to a final decision, and when pressed about the matter in the House he told us that he was sending out this good will mission and that it would be representative of the House. It was not a Royal Commission; it was quite informal—

Mr. Attlee: Formal.

Mr. Maxton: Informal, as representing this House. It was not tied up to the Dominions Office. The members of the mission were to come back here and

inform the House. They worked very hard. I remember referring jestingly to their mission as a "holiday," but after having had the opportunity of seeing their reports, by their personal good will, I have to admit that they worked hard on the job. They were there three months and now they have come back but have not been allowed to make any statement to the House.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the hon. Member aware that the three delegates have, in fact, made a very full report to-day upstairs, and does he not think it singularly unfortunate that that should have concurred with the Debate on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Maxton: I knew of the meeting upstairs, which was under the auspices of the Empire Parliamentary Association and was, presumably, in private.

Sir F. Sanderson: Yes.

Mr. Maxton: Yes, without the Press being present and without Newfoundland being able to hear what was going on. To treat three Members of this House, who devoted that amount of time to their job, by shoving them upstairs in a little room is a shocking insult. These men spent time like that at a period of the year when most of us want to be on holiday, and they travelled the length and breadth of the country examining every possible aspect of it, and when they come back here all we get is an outside organisation having a meeting upstairs. All I am urguing is that when this matters comes before the House it will not be on an Adjournment Motion, but will be on a specific Government Motion laying down how the Newfoundland situation is to be dealt with.

Sir A. Beit: In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I want to express my great disappointment that neither Government spokesmen have seen their way to give a strong lead to the Empire on the question of constitutional machinery, nor addressed themselves to regional councils and various other problems which I raised.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned.—[Captain McEwen.]

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

Read a Second Time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Captain McEwen.]

Committee, upon the next Sitting Day.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[MAJOR MILNER in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, and the Debts Clearing Offices, and Import Restrictions Act, 1934 until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-four, and of the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five, being expenses which, under any of the four last-mentioned Acts, are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, and the Special Areas (Amendment) Act, 1937, until the said thirty-first day of December, and the said thirty-first day of March, respectively, being receipts which, under either of the last-mentioned Acts, are to be paid into the Exchequer."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Assheton.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [25th November], "That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members," which Amendment was to leave out the word "Seventeen," and to insert instead there-of the word "Seven."

Question again proposed, "That the word Seventeen 'stand part of the Question."

Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Committee accordingly nominated of Sir Ernest Bennett, Sir Reginald Blair, Captain Sir William Brass, Mr. Douglas Cooke, Viscountess Davidson, Sir Henry Fildes, Mrs. Hardie, Mr. Horabin, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Liddall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Mr. R. C. Morrison, Mr. Muff, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Bracewell Smith, Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Arthur Young.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament for the Defence Services, for Civil Defence and for other services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the Government may be effected therein."—[Sir J. Edmondson.]

Major C. S. Taylor: I do not rise to oppose the appointment of this Select Committee on National Expenditure, but we are proposing to appoint 32 hon. Members on it. This Committee has great powers, and I want to ask one question about its procedure. I do so with great diffidence.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]